05.08.2013 Views

ORNL-4865

ORNL-4865

ORNL-4865

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

National Technical Information Service<br />

US. Department of Commerce<br />

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161<br />

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States<br />

Government. Neither the United States nsr the Energy Research and Develspmnt<br />

Administration, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors,<br />

subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or<br />

assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or<br />

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or rep~esents<br />

that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.


Ccntract No. W-5405eng-26<br />

FlSSrON PRODUCT BEHAVIOR<br />

IN THE MOLTEN SALT REACTOR EXPERllMEMT<br />

E. L. Compere E. G. Bohlmann<br />

S. S. Kirslis F. F. Blankenship<br />

W. 8. Grimes<br />

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL bABOFL4TORY<br />

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830<br />

operated by<br />

UNION CAR5IDE CORPORATiON<br />

for the<br />

ENERGY FiESEAROH AND DEVELOPMENT /UX4lNlSTRATlON<br />

UC-76 - WlsCten Salt Reactor %eeknology


This report is one of periodic reports in which we describe the progress of the program. Other reports<br />

issued in this series are listed below.<br />

OKNL-2474<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-2626<br />

OWL-2684<br />

OKWL-2723<br />

ORYL-2799<br />

ORSL-2800<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-2973<br />

ORNI730 14<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-3 122<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-32 15<br />

ORNE-3282<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-3360<br />

OR%-34 IO<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-3519<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-3626<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-3408<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-38 12<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-3872<br />

ORWL-3936<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4037<br />

QRNL-4119<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4 19 I<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4254<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4344<br />

QRWL-4396<br />

URSL-444‘3<br />

OKSL-4548<br />

ORKL-4622<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4676<br />

OKNL-4728<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4782<br />

Period Ending January 3 1. 1958<br />

Period Ending October 3 1, 1958<br />

Period Ending January 3 I, I959<br />

Period Ending April 30, 1959<br />

Period Ending July 3 1, 1059<br />

Period Ending October 3 I ~ 1959<br />

Periods Ending January 31 and April 30, 1960<br />

Period Ending July 3 1, 1960<br />

Period Ending February 28, 196 1<br />

Period Ending August 3 1, 196 1<br />

Period Ending February 28, 1962<br />

Period Ending August 3 1, 1962<br />

Period Ending January 3 I, 1963<br />

Period Ending July 3 1 ~ 1963<br />

Period Ending January 3 I, 1964<br />

Period Ending July 3 1, 1964<br />

Period Ending February 28, 1965<br />

Period Ending August 3 1 ~ 1365<br />

Period Ending February 28, 1966<br />

Period Ending August 3 1, 1966<br />

Period Ending February 28, 1967<br />

Period Ending August 3 I, 1964<br />

Period Ending February 29, 1968<br />

Period Ending August 3 I, 1968<br />

Period Ending February 28, 1969<br />

Period Ending August 31, 1969<br />

Period Ending February 28, 1970<br />

Period Ending August 3 1, 1970<br />

Period Ending February 38, 1971<br />

Period Ending August 3 I I 197 1<br />

Period Ending February 29, I972


CONTENTS<br />

ABSTRACT ............................................................................. 1<br />

FORBWAKD ............................................................................ 1<br />

1 . "TWODUCTION ..................................................................... 2<br />

2 . THE MOLTEN SALT REACTOR EXPERIMENT ............................................ 3<br />

3 . MSRE CHRONOLOGY ................................................................. 10<br />

3.1 Operation with 235U F;ueI .......................................................... 10<br />

3.2 Operation with 3U Fuel .......................................................... 12<br />

4 . SOME CHEMISTRY FUXDAMENTALS ................................................... 14<br />

5 . INVENTORY ........................................................................ 16<br />

6 . SALTSAMPLES ............... .................................................... 19<br />

6.1 Ladle Saxnples ..................................... ........................ 19<br />

6.2 Freeze-Valuc: Samples .............................................................. 22<br />

6.3 Double Wall Capsuie ..........................................................<br />

6.4 Fission Product Element Grouping . ......................................<br />

6.5 IVoblc-Metal Behavior .................. .......................... 27<br />

..................................................... 28<br />

6.7 lodine .......................................................................... 28<br />

6.8 Tellurium ............................................. ....... ......... 72<br />

7 . SURFACE IlbH"$SITBO?I OF FISSION PRODUC 1's BY PUMP BOWL EXPOSURE .................. 37<br />

7.1 Cable .......................................................................... 37<br />

7.2 Capsule Surfaces .................................................................. 37<br />

7.3 Exposure H:xpemients ............................................................. 37<br />

7.4 Mise ........................................................................... 41<br />

8~ GASSAMPLES ....................................................................... 48<br />

8.1 Freeze-Valve Capsule .............................................................. 48<br />

8.2 Validity of Cas Samples ............................................................ 48<br />

8.3 Double-Wall Freeze Valve Capsule .................................................... 40<br />

8.4 Ef~eectol'Wist .................................................................... 50<br />

9 . SURVEILLANCE SPECIMENS .................................<br />

... 60<br />

9.1 Assemblies I- 4 ......................<br />

............................. 60<br />

9.1.1 Reface ........................................<br />

.... 60<br />

9.1.2 Relative deposit intensity ........... .................................. 63


iV<br />

9.2 Final Assembly ................................................................... 70<br />

9.2.1 Design ....................... ....................................... 70<br />

9.2.2 Specimens and flonr ........................................................ 70<br />

9.2.3 Fission recoil ............................................................. 73<br />

9.2.4 Salt.seekingnuclides ........................................................ '73<br />

9.2.5 Nuclides with noble-gas precursors .......................................<br />

9.2.6 Noble metals: niobium and mulybdenutn ........................................ 74<br />

9.2.4 Ruthenium ........................................................<br />

9.2.8 Tellurium ................................................................ 74<br />

9.2.9 Io$ine ...................................................................<br />

9.2.10 Sticking facturs ...........................................................<br />

74<br />

74<br />

9.3 Profile Data .................... .............................................. 45<br />

9.3.1 Procedure ................................................................ 75<br />

9.3.2 Results ..................................................................<br />

9.3.3 Diffusion mechanism relationships .............................................<br />

78<br />

78<br />

9.3.4 Conclusions from profile data ................................................ 84<br />

9.4 Other Findings 011 Surveillance Specimens ..............................................<br />

10 . E%lhMINATION OF OFF-GAS SYSTEM COMPONCKTS OR SPECIMENS<br />

REMOVED PKIOK TO FINAL SHUTDOWN ............................................. 91<br />

10.1 Examination of Particle Trap Removed after Kun 7 ....................................... 91<br />

10.2 Examination of Bff-Gas Jumper kine Removed after Run 14 ............................... 92<br />

10.2.1 Chemical analysis .... ................... ...................... 93<br />

10.2.2 Radiochemical analysis ................. .................... ........ 93<br />

20.3 Examination of Material Recovered from Off-Gas Line after Run 16 ........... ............ 98<br />

10.4 Off-Gas h e Examinations after Run 18 .................... ..................... 100<br />

10.5 Examination of Valve Assembly from Line 523 after Run 18 .................. ..... . 104<br />

10.6 The Estimation of FIowing Aerosol Concentrations from Deposits 011 Conduit Wid1 .............. 106<br />

10.6. I Deposition by diffusion<br />

10.6.2 Deposition by thermoph ................ ........... ......... 107<br />

10.6.3 Reiarionship between ob<br />

................ 107<br />

10.4 Discussion of Off-Gas Line Transp ................ ..................<br />

10.7.1 Salt constituents and salt-s<br />

..................... 109<br />

10.7.2 Daughters of noble gases<br />

10.7.3 Noble metals .........<br />

................<br />

I 1 . FJST-OPERATION EXAMINATION OF MSRE COMPONENTS .......... .................. 112<br />

11.1 ExarninatioIl of Deposits from the Mist Shield in the MSWE Fuel Pump Bowl ................... 112<br />

1 I . 2 Examination of Moderator Graphite from MSRE ......................................... 120<br />

1 1.2.1 Results of visual examination .................................................. 120<br />

11.2.2 Segmenting of graphite stringer .................... ............... ....... 120<br />

11 2.3 Examination of surface samples by x-ray diffraction ... .......................... 121<br />

1 1.2.4 Milling of surface graphite samples ..................... ...................... 121<br />

11 2.5 Radiochemical and chemical analyses of MSRE graphite .... ...................... 121<br />

11.3 Examination of Heat Exchangers arid Control Rod Thimble Surfaces ......................... 125<br />

11.4 Metal Transfer in MSRE Salt Circuits .................................................. 126<br />

1 I . 5 Cesium Isotope Migration in MSRE Graphite ............................................ 127<br />

85


il.6 Noble-Metal Fission Transport Model .<br />

11.6. I Inventory and model . . . . . . .<br />

11.6.2 Off-gas line deposits . . . . ‘ . .<br />

11.6.3 Surveillance specimens . . . . . . . .<br />

11.6.4 Pump bowl samples . . . . . . . . . .<br />

12. SUMMARY AND OVEWVIEW . . I . . . . _ .<br />

12.1 Stable Salt-Soluble Fluorides . . ~ . . .<br />

12.1.1 Salt samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />

12.1.2 Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />

12.1.3 Gas samples . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />

12.2 Noble Metals . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . ~ . .<br />

12.2.1 Salt-borne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />

12.2.2 Niobium . , . . . . . . . . .<br />

12.2.3 Gas-borne . . ~ . . ~ . . . . . . . . .<br />

12.3 Deposition in Graphite and IIastelioy S . .<br />

12.4 Iodine ............................<br />

12.5 Evaluation ........................<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

.<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

V<br />

. ~<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

~<br />

_ .<br />

.<br />

. .<br />

~ .<br />

. . . _<br />

. . .<br />

. . .<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

I . .<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

.<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

. .<br />

..~..~..~..... 136<br />

~.~..n..l..... 136<br />

. . ..~......... 136<br />

.............I 136<br />

..~..L..~ . . . . . 137<br />

. . . . . . . . . . ...‘ 138<br />

.............I 138


Figure 2.1<br />

Figure 2.2<br />

Figure 2.3<br />

Figure 2.4<br />

Figure 3.1<br />

Figure 6.1<br />

Figure 6.3<br />

Figure 6.4<br />

Figure 6.5<br />

Figure 7.1<br />

Figure 7.2<br />

Figure 7.3<br />

Figure 8.i<br />

Figure 8.3<br />

FIgure 9.1<br />

Figure 3.2<br />

Figure 9.3<br />

Figure 9.4<br />

Figure 9.5<br />

Figure 9.6<br />

Figure 9.7<br />

Figure 9 8<br />

Figure 9.9<br />

Figure 9. IO<br />

Figure 9.1 I<br />

Figure 9.12<br />

Figure 9.13<br />

Figure 9.24<br />

Figure 9.15<br />

Figure 9.16<br />

vi<br />

LIST OF FIGURES<br />

Design flow sheet of the MSKE .....................................<br />

Pressures, volumes, arid transit times in MSRE fuel circulating loop ....................... 4<br />

MSRE reactor vessel ~ ........................................................ 5<br />

Flow patterns in the MSRE fuel pump ............<br />

Chronological outlines of MSRE operations .................... 11<br />

Sampler-enricher schematic .....................................................<br />

Apparatus for removing MSRE salt from pulverizer-mixer to<br />

19<br />

polyethylene sample bottle .................................................... 20<br />

Freeze valve capsule ....................................... ... ...... 32<br />

Noble-metal activities of salt samples ...... .... ........................ 30<br />

Specimen holder designed to prevent contamination by contact with transfer tube ........... 39<br />

Sample holder for short-term deposition test ........................................<br />

Salt droplets on a metal strip exposed in MSRE pump bowl gas space for 10 hr ....<br />

41<br />

Freeze valve capsulc ........................................................... 48<br />

Double-wall sample capsule ~ . . ... ... .................... 50<br />

Typical graphite shapes lased in a stringer of surveillaice specimens ............... . . 60<br />

Surveillance specimen stringer ........................ . I ........... 61<br />

Stringer containment . . .................................. 61<br />

Stringer assembly .................................................... ..... 62<br />

Neutron flux and temperature profiles for core surveillance assembly ..................... 63<br />

Schcme for milling graphite samples ... ................... 64<br />

Firial surveillance specimen assembly .......................................<br />

Concentration profile for ICs in impregnated CGB graphite, sample P-92 ................ 75<br />

C:onceiitration profiles for 89Sr and I4'I3a in two samples of CGR, X-13 wide face,<br />

andP-58 .................................. .. ...<br />

Concentration profiles for Sr arid ' O Ba in pyrolytic graphite ...<br />

...... 75<br />

...... 75<br />

Coilcentration profiles for "Nb and 95Zr in CGB graphite, X-13,<br />

doubleexposure ........................................................<br />

Concentration profiles for O3 Ru on two faces of the X-13 graphite<br />

. 76<br />

specimen, CGB, double exposure ............................................... 77<br />

Concentration profiles for O6 Ru, 4' Ce, and '"e in CGB<br />

graphite, sample Y-9 .... ........................... 77<br />

Concentration profiles for d'e and 44~e in two samples of cGB graphite,<br />

X-13, wide face, and P-38 .......................................<br />

Fission product distribution in unirnpregnated CGB (P-55) graphite specimen ir<br />

........... 78<br />

in MSRE cycle ending March 25, 1968 ........................................... 49<br />

Fission product distribution in impregnated CGB 28) graphite specimen irradiated<br />

in MSRE cycle ending March 25, 1968 ...... .................. 80


&%.&<br />

Figure 9.19<br />

Figure Si. I8<br />

Figure 9.19<br />

Figure 9.20<br />

Figure 9.21<br />

Figure 9.22<br />

Figwe 9.23<br />

Figure 9.24<br />

F,gure 9.25<br />

Figure 10.1<br />

biguie 10.2<br />

Figure 10.3<br />

E1gure 10.4<br />

Figure 10.5<br />

Plgm 10.6<br />

Figure 10.7<br />

Figure 10.8<br />

Figure 1 I. I<br />

Figure 11.2<br />

Figure 1 I .3<br />

Figure 11.4<br />

Figure 1 I .5<br />

Figure 11 .G<br />

Figure 11.9<br />

Figure 11.8<br />

Distribution in pyrolytic graphite specimen irradiated in MSRE for<br />

cycle ending hlarch 25, l?G8 ...................................................<br />

C'raniuni-235 concentration profiles in CGB and pyrolytic graphite .......................<br />

Lithium concentration as a function of distance from the surface: specimen Y-7 . . . ~ . .<br />

Lithium concentration as a function of distance from the surface, specimen X- 13 ............<br />

Fluorine concentrations in graphite sarnpk U-7, exposed to molten fuel<br />

salt in the MSRE for iijiie months ........................................ . . 89<br />

Fluorine concentration as a function of djstaiice from thc suzface, specimen X-13 ...........<br />

Cornparison of lithium concentrations in samples Y-7 and X-13 .........................<br />

%lass concentration ratio, F/I& vs depth, specimen X- 13 ............. ...<br />

Comparison of fluorine concentrations in samples Y-'7 and X-13: a smooth line having bceii<br />

drawn through the data points .. .................... 89<br />

MSE off-gas particle trap . ................. ............................ 91<br />

Deposits in particle trap Uorkmesh<br />

........................................<br />

Deposits on jumper line flanges after run 14 ..... ............................. 94<br />

Sections of off-gas jumper iine flexible tubing and outiet tube after run 14 ................. 95<br />

Deposit on flexible probe ...... .................. . L . ....... 98<br />

Dust recovered from upstream end of' jumper Line after run 14 (16,000 w) .................<br />

Off-gas liiic specimen holder as segmented after removal, foliowing run I8<br />

.................<br />

Secticln of off-gas line specimen holder showing flaked deposit,<br />

removed after mri 18 ....... ..... .................. 104<br />

Mist shield containing sampler cage from MSKE pump bowl ............................ I 13<br />

Interior of mist shield ....... ....... .................. 114<br />

Sample cage arid mist shield ..................................................... 115<br />

Deposits on sanipler cage ......... I16<br />

Concentration profiles from the fuel side of an MSRE heat exchanger tube measured<br />

about 1.5 years after reactor sliutdown ........................................... 126<br />

Coilcentration of cesium isotopes in MSRE core graphite at given distances<br />

from fuel channel surface ...... ........................................... 127<br />

Compartment model for nobie-metal fission transport in MSRE ......................... 129<br />

Ratio of ruthenium isotope activities for pump bowl samples . . ~ . . . . . 132<br />

81<br />

84<br />

87<br />

87<br />

88<br />

88<br />

89<br />

'?z<br />

99<br />

101


Table 2.1<br />

Table 2.2<br />

Table 3.1<br />

Table 4 .I<br />

Table 5.1<br />

Table 6.1<br />

Table 6.2<br />

Table 6.3<br />

Table 6.4<br />

Table 6.5<br />

Table 6.6<br />

Table 6.7<br />

Table 6.8<br />

Table 7.1<br />

Table 7.2<br />

Table 7.3<br />

Table 7.4<br />

Table 4.5<br />

Table 7.6<br />

Table 8.1<br />

Table 8.2<br />

Table 8.3<br />

Table 9.1<br />

Table 9.2<br />

Tabie 3.3<br />

Table 9.4<br />

Table 9.5<br />

Table 9.6<br />

Table 9.7<br />

viii<br />

LIST OF TABLES<br />

Physical properties of the hlSRE fuel salt .......................................... 8<br />

Average composition of MSKE fuel salt ............................................ 9<br />

MSWE run periods and power accumulation ........................................ 12<br />

Free energy of formation at 650°C (AG"f. kcd) ..................................... 14<br />

Fission product data for inventory calculations ......................................<br />

Noble-gas daughters and salt-seeking isotopes in salt samples from MSE pump bowl<br />

17<br />

during uranium-235 operations ................................................. 21<br />

Noble metals in salt samples from MSKE pump bowl during uranium-235 operation . . . . ~ . 21<br />

Data on fuel (including carrier) salt samples from MSRE pump bowl during<br />

uranium-233 operation ....................................................... 23<br />

Noble-gas daughters and salt-seeking isotopes in salt samples from MSRE punlp bowl<br />

during uranium-233 operation ................................................. 24<br />

?Jobhe metals in salt samples from MSKE pump bowl during uranium-233 operation ......... 25<br />

Operating conditions for salt samples taken from MSRE pump bowl during<br />

uranium-233 operation . ............................................. 26<br />

Data for salt samples from pump bowl during uranium-235 operation .................... 31<br />

Data for salt samples from MSRE pump bowl during uranium-233 operation . ~ . . . . ~. . 32-36<br />

Data for graphite and metal specimens immers~d in pump bowl .........................<br />

Deposition of fission products on graphite and metal specimcns in float-window<br />

38<br />

capsule immersed for various periods in MSRB pump bowl liquid salt ................... 40<br />

Data for wire coils and cables exposed in MSKE pump bowl ............................ 44<br />

Data for miscellaneous capsules from MSKE pump bowl ...............................<br />

Data for salt samples for double-walled capsules immersed in salt in the MSRE pump bowl<br />

45<br />

duringuranium-233 operation ................................................. 46<br />

Data for gas samples from double-walled capsules exposed to gas in the MSRE pump<br />

bowl during uranium-233 operation ............................................. 47<br />

Gas-borne percentage of MSRE production rate ..................................... 51<br />

Gas samples LJ operation .................................................... 53<br />

Data for gas samples from MSKE pump bowl during uranium-233 operation ............ 54-59<br />

Surveillance specimen data: first arra)' removed after run '9 ............................. 66<br />

Survey 2, removed after run 11: inserted after run 7 .................................. 67<br />

Third surveillance specimen survey, removed after run 14 .............................. 68<br />

Fourth surveglance specimen survey, removed after run 18 .............................<br />

Kelative desposition intonsity of fission products on graphite surveillance specimens<br />

69<br />

from find core specimen array ................................................. 71<br />

Relative deposition intensity of fission products on Hastelloy N surveillance specimens<br />

from final core specimen array ................................................. 42<br />

Calculated specimen activity parameters after run 14 based on diffusion<br />

calculations and salt inventory ................................................. 84<br />

. ~


\.&P<br />

Table 9.8<br />

Table 3.9<br />

Table 9.10<br />

Table 10.1<br />

Table 10.2<br />

Table 10.3<br />

Table 10.4<br />

Table 10.5<br />

Table 10.6<br />

Table 10.4<br />

Table 10.8<br />

Table 10.9<br />

Table 18.10<br />

Table 10.11<br />

Table 11.1<br />

Table 11.2<br />

Table 11.3<br />

Table 11.4<br />

Table 11.5<br />

Table 11.6<br />

Table 12.2<br />

Table 12.3<br />

List of milled cuts from graphite for which the fission product content could be<br />

iw<br />

approximately accounted for by the uranium present . ~ .<br />

Spectrographic analyses of graphite specimens after 32,000 MWhr . . . . . ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />

. ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . .<br />

Percentage isotopic composition of molybdenum on surveillance specimens . . ....I.. . . . . 86<br />

Analysis of dust from MSRE off-gas jumper line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 06<br />

Relative quantities of elements and isotopes found in off-gas jumper line . . . . . . . . . 94<br />

Material recovered from MSRE off-gas line after run 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .<br />

. . . ~ .<br />

Data on samples or segments from off-gas line specimen holder removed following run 18 . ~ .<br />

Specimens exposed in MSRE off-gas line, runs 15 --I8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .<br />

Analysis of depusits from line 523 . ~. . I<br />

Diffusion coefficient of particles in 5 psig of helium . . . . . . . . ~ .<br />

. I .<br />

. . . . . . . . . . . . I .<br />

Therrnophoretic deposition parameters estimated for off-gas line . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .<br />

Grams of salt estimated to enter off-gas system . . . . . I . . . . ~ .<br />

. ~ . . ~ .<br />

. ~ . . . . . .<br />

. . . . ~ .<br />

Estimated percentage of noble-gas nuclides entering the off-gas based on deposited daughter<br />

activity and ratio to theoretical value for full stripping . ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. . . . I .<br />

. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .<br />

85<br />

86<br />

. ~ . . I . . ~ . . 100<br />

. . 102<br />

. ~ . . ~ . 103<br />

..~... 105<br />

. . . . ~ . . . . . 106<br />

. ~ . . . . . . . IO4<br />

Estimated fraction of noble-metal production entering off-gas system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ I<br />

Chemical arid spectrographic analysis of deposits from mist shield in<br />

.<br />

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .<br />

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />

the MSRE pump bowl . . . . ...L............................................ 117<br />

Gamma spectrographic (,Ge-diode) analysis of deposits from mist shield in the<br />

MSWE pump bOWl . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . 118<br />

Chemical ar~al~ises of milled samples . . . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . . ................ 122<br />

Radiochemical analyses of graphite stringer samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . 12.1<br />

Fission products in MSKE graphite core bar after removal in curnularive values<br />

of ratio to inventory I .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

Fission products on surfaces of Hastelloy N after termination of operation expressed<br />

Ruthenium isotope activity ratios of off-gas h e deposits . . . . . ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. . . . . . . . . ~ .<br />

. . . a .<br />

as (obsemed dis rnin-’ crn-’)/(MSRE inventor)i/total MSRE surface area) . ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. . . . ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. . . ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ 110<br />

IO<br />

. . . . e . . ~ . . . 125<br />

. . . . . . . . .<br />

. ~ . . . 130<br />

Ruthenium isotope activity ratios of surveillance specimens ........... 131<br />

Stable fluoride fission product activity as a fraction of calculated inventory<br />

in salt samples from 33U operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .<br />

Relativi: deposition intensities for noble metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I .<br />

Indicated distribution of fission products in molten-salt reactors . . . . . . I .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. I .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. ~ .<br />

. . . . ~ .<br />

135<br />

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137<br />

. . . . ~ .<br />

, ~ .<br />

. I . . ~ .<br />

. I39


P<br />

FISSION PRODUCT BEHAVIOR IN THE MOLTEN SALT REACTOR EXPERIMENT<br />

E. E. Cornpcre E. G. Bohimanri<br />

S. S. Kirslis F. F. Blankenship<br />

W. R. Grimes<br />

ABSTRACT<br />

Essentially all the fission product data for nunierous and varied samples taken during operation of<br />

the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment or as part of the examination of specimens rernoved after<br />

particuiar phases of operation are repurted, together with the appropriate inventory or other basis of<br />

cuniparison. and relevant reactor parameters and conditions. Fiasion product behavior fell into distinct<br />

chemical groups.<br />

The noble-gas fission products Kr and Xe were indicated by the activity of their daughters to hc<br />

removed from the fuel salt by stripping to the off-gas during bypass flow through the pump bowl, and<br />

by diffusion into moderator graphite, in reasonable accord with theory. Daughter products appeared<br />

to be deposited promptly on nearby surfaces including sait. for the short-lived noblegas nuclides,<br />

most decay occurred in the fuel sdt.<br />

The fission product elements Rb, Cs, SI, Ea, Y, Zr, and the lanthanides all form stable fluorides<br />

which are soluhle in fuel salt. 'These were not removed from the s:ilt, and materi:il balances were<br />

reasonably good. An acrosol salt mist produced in the pump bowl permitted a very small aniount to be<br />

transported into the off-gas.<br />

Iodine was indicated (with less certainty because of soniewhat deficient material balance) also TO<br />

remain in the salt, with no evidence of volatilization or deposition on metar or graphite surfaces.<br />

The elements Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, .4g, Sb, and Te are not expected to form stable fluorides under the<br />

redox conditions of reactor fuel salt. These so-cailed noblemetal elements tended to deposit<br />

ubiquirously on system surfaces - metal, graphite, or the salt-gas interface - so that these regions<br />

accumulated relatively high proportions while the salt proper was depleted.<br />

Sonic holdup prior to final deposition was indicated at least for ruthenium and teIlurium and<br />

possibly ;ill of this group of elements.<br />

Evidence for fission product behavior during operation over a period of 26 months with 231FJ fuel<br />

(more than 9000 effective full-power hours) was consistent with behavior during operation using 233U<br />

fuel over a period of about 15 months (more than 5100 effective full-power hours).<br />

This report includes essentially all the fission product<br />

data for samples taken during operation of the Molten<br />

Salt Reactor Expcrinnent or as part of the examination<br />

of specimens removed after completion of particular<br />

phases of operation, together with the appropriate<br />

inventory or otlm basis of cornparison appropriate to<br />

each particular datum.<br />

It is appropriate here to acknowledge the excellent<br />

cooperation with the operating staff of the Molten Salt<br />

Reactor Experiment, under P. N. Haubenreich. The<br />

work is also necessarily based on innumerable highly<br />

radioactive samples, and we are grateful for the con-<br />

sistently reliable chemical arid radiochemical analyses<br />

performed by the h alj tical Chemistry Division (J. C.<br />

White, Director), with particular gratitude due C. E.<br />

FOREWORD<br />

Lamb, U. Koskela, C. K. Talbot, E. 1. Wyatt, J. HI.<br />

Moneyhun, K. R. Kickard, H. A. Paiker, and H<br />

Wright.<br />

The preparation of specimens in the hot cells was<br />

conducted under the direction of E. 111. King. A. A.<br />

Walls, It. L. Lines, S. E. Disrnuke. k~ L. Long, D. K.<br />

Cuneo, and their co-workers, and we express our<br />

appreciation for their cooperation and innovative assist-<br />

ance.<br />

We are especially grateful to the TechriicaI Publications<br />

Department for very perceptive and thorough editorial<br />

work.<br />

We also wish lo acknowledge the excellent assistance<br />

received from our co-workers L. L. Fairchild, 3. A.<br />

Myers, and 3. E. Rutherford.


In molten-salt reactors (or any with circulating fuel),<br />

fission occurs as the fluid fuel is passed through a core<br />

region large enough to develop a critical mass. The<br />

kinetic energy of the fission fragments is taken up by<br />

the fluid, substantially as heat, with the fission frag-<br />

ment atoms (except those in recoil range of surfaces)<br />

remaining in the fluid, unless they subsequently are<br />

subject to chemicaI or physical actions that transport<br />

them from the fluid fuel. In any event, progression<br />

down the radioactive decay sequence characteristic of<br />

each fission chain ensues.<br />

In molten-salt reactors, this process accumulates<br />

many fission products in the salt until a steady state is<br />

reached as a result of burnout, decay, or processing.<br />

The first four periodic groups, including the rare earths.<br />

fall in this category.<br />

Krypton and xenon isotopes are slightly soluble gases<br />

in the fluid fuel and may be readily stripped from the<br />

fuel as such, though most of the rare gases undergo<br />

decay to alkali element daughters while in the fuel and<br />

remain there.<br />

A third category of elements, the so-called nobIe<br />

metals (including Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Ni: Pd, Ag, Sb, and<br />

Te) appear to be less stable in salt and can deposit out<br />

on various surfaces.<br />

There are a number of consequences of fission<br />

product deposition. They provide fixed sources of<br />

decay heat and radiation. The afterheat effect will<br />

require careful consideration in design, and the associ-<br />

ated radiation will make rnaintenance of ielated equip-<br />

ment more hazardous or difficult. Localization (on<br />

graphite) in the core could increase the neutron poison<br />

effect. There are indications that some fission products<br />

2<br />

1. INTRODUCTION<br />

(e.g., tellurium) deposited on metals are associated with<br />

deleterious grain-boundary effects.<br />

Thus, an understanding of fission product behavior is<br />

requisite for the development of molten-salt breeder<br />

reactors, and the information obtainable from the<br />

Molten Salt Reactor Experiment is a major source.<br />

The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment in its operating<br />

period of nearly four years provided essentially four<br />

sources of data on fission products:<br />

I. Samples - capsules of liquid or gas - taken from the<br />

pump bowl periodically; also surfaces exposed there.<br />

2. Surveillance specimens - assemblies of materials<br />

exposed in the core. Five such assemblies were<br />

removed after exposure to fuel fissioning over a<br />

period of time.<br />

3. Specimens of material recovered from various sys-<br />

tem segments. particularly after the final shutdown.<br />

4. Surveys of gamma radiation using remote collimated<br />

instrumentation, during and after shutdown. As this<br />

is the subject of a separate report, we will not deal<br />

with this directly.<br />

Because of the continuing generation by fission and<br />

decay through time, the fission product population is<br />

constantly changing. We will normally refer all measure-<br />

ments back to the time at which the sample was<br />

removed during fuel circulation. In the case of speci-<br />

mens removed after the fuel was drained, the activities<br />

will nornzally refer to the time of shutdown of the<br />

reactor. Calculated inventories will refer in each case<br />

also to the appropriate time.<br />

j.. .... j.


We will briefly describe here some of the character-<br />

istics of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment that might<br />

be related to fission product behavior.<br />

The fuel circuit of the MSRE'-4 is indicated in Figs.<br />

2.1 and 2.2. It consisted essentially of a reactor vessel, a<br />

circulating pump. and the shell side of the primary heat<br />

exchanger, connected by appropriate piping. all con-<br />

structed of Hastelloy N.5 '6Hastekloy N is a nickel-based<br />

alloy containing about 17% molybdenum, 7% chrom-<br />

ium, and 5% iron, developed for superior resistance to<br />

corrosion by moiten fluorides.<br />

The main circulating "loop" (Fig. 2.2) contained<br />

69.13 ft3 of fuel, with approximately 2.9 ft3 more in<br />

the 4.8-ft3 pump bowl, which served as a surge volume.<br />

The total fuel-salt charge to the system amounted to<br />

about 78.8 ft3 : the extra voiurne, aniounting to about<br />

9% of the system total, was contained in the drain tanks<br />

and mixed with the salt from the main loop each time<br />

the fuel salt was drained from the cure.<br />

Of the salt in the main loop, about 23.52 ft3 was in<br />

fuel channels cut in vertical graphite bars which filled<br />

the reactor vessel core, 33.65 ft3 was in the reactor<br />

vessel outer annulus and the upper and lower plenums,<br />

I 1<br />

3<br />

2. THE MOLTEN SALT REACTOR EXPERIMENT<br />

6.12 ft3 was in the heat exchanger (shell side), and the<br />

remaining 6.14 ft3 was in the pump and piping.<br />

About 5% (65 gpm) of the pump output was recir-<br />

culated through the pump bowl. The remaining 1200<br />

gpin (2.67 cfss) flowed through the shell si& of the heat<br />

exchanger and thence to the reactor vessel (Fig. 2.3).<br />

The flow was distributed around the upper part of an<br />

annulus separated from the core region by a metal wall<br />

and flowed into a lower plenum, from which the entire<br />

system could be drained. The lower plenum was<br />

provided with flow vanes and the support structure for<br />

a two-layer grid of 1-in. graphite bars spaced 1 in. apart,<br />

covering the entire bottom cross section except for a<br />

central (10 X 10 in.) area. One-inch cylindrical ends of<br />

the two-inch-square graphite moderator bars extended<br />

into alternate spacings of the grid. Above the grid the<br />

core was entirely filled with vertical graphite moderator<br />

bars. 64 in. tall, with matching round end half channels,<br />

0.2 in.deep arid 1.2 in. wide, cut into each face.There<br />

were 1108 full channels, and partial channels equivalent<br />

to 32 more. Four bar spaces at the corners of the<br />

central bar were approximately circular, 2.6 in. in diam-<br />

eter; three of these contained 2-in. control rod thirn-


POSIT ON<br />

10<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

c;<br />

7<br />

e<br />

ij<br />

13<br />

LOOP CATA A1 12(:C°F, 5 psq, !2OOgpv<br />

CIFF TPfit>!SI-<br />

VOLUME TllllE<br />

:33: Isecj<br />

! l 3 4'<br />

0 ?E 0.26<br />

6 12 2.29<br />

2.18 0 8i<br />

9 T2 3.63<br />

12 24 4.53<br />

23 52 6 79<br />

11 39 4.26<br />

13? c 5'<br />

0 l.5 0.27<br />

4<br />

PRESSURE<br />

: PSIC)<br />

23 4<br />

13 3<br />

69 7<br />

44 4<br />

43 4<br />

43 3<br />

35 5<br />

25.8<br />

_...<br />

2c.4<br />

ORN! -CWC 70 5152<br />

Fig. 2.2. PP~SSU~~S, volumes, and transit times in MSRE fuel circulating hap.<br />

ble tubes, and the fourth contained 2 removable tubular<br />

surveillance specimen array.<br />

At reactor temperatures the expansion of the reactor<br />

vessel enlarged thc annulus between the core graphite<br />

and the inner wall to about I/' in.<br />

Model studies,' ,8 indicated that althou-& the Reyn-<br />

olds number for flow in the tioncential graphite fuel<br />

channels was 1000, the square-root dependence of flow<br />

on salt head loss implied that tuibulent entrance<br />

conditions persisted well up into the channel.<br />

Fuel salt leaving the core passed through the upper<br />

plenum and the reactor outlet norLIe, to which the<br />

reactor access port was attached. Surveillance speci-<br />

mens. the postmortem segments of control rod thimble,<br />

and a core graphite bar were withdrawn through the<br />

access port.<br />

The fuel outlet line extended from the reactor outlet<br />

nozzle to the pump entry nozzle.<br />

The centrifugal sump-type pump operated with a<br />

vertical shaft and an overhung impeller normally at a<br />

speed of 1160 rpm to deliver 1200 gpm to the discharge<br />

line at a Iiead of 49 ft, in addition to internal<br />

circulation in the pump bowl, described below, amount-<br />

ing to 65 gpm. Because many gas and liquid samples<br />

were taken from the pump bowl, we \di outline here<br />

some of the relevant structures and flows. These have<br />

been discussed in gieater length by Engel, Haubenreich,<br />

and Hout~eel.~


e... . . .<br />

GRAPH TE SAMPLE ACCESS POF?T<br />

LCIRGF GRAPHITE ;AMPIES<br />

C@RF CE\TF?ING $HIE<br />

GRCPHiTE - U03EQ8<br />

STRlhGEE -<br />

REOCTOE VESSEL A<br />

l<br />

BNTI-SWIRL VbNES<br />

.-<br />

LlNt -<br />

5<br />

Fig. 2.3. MSRE reactor vessel.<br />

F-t *I61 E<br />

CON1 R@L<br />

7 . OLrLFT STRAINER<br />

SUPPORT GRID<br />

-COHt WILL COOLING PVUUI


Some of the major functions of the pump and pump<br />

bowl were:<br />

1. fuel circulation pump,<br />

2.<br />

a.<br />

4.<br />

5. fission gas stripper,<br />

6. gas addition point (helium, argon, oil vapor),<br />

7.<br />

8.<br />

9. salt sample point,<br />

10. gas sample point,<br />

11.<br />

12.<br />

liquid expansion or surge tank,<br />

point for removd and return of system overflow,<br />

system pressurizer,<br />

holdup and outlet for off-gas and purge gas,<br />

fuel enricher and chemical addition point,<br />

point for contacting specimen surfaces with liquid<br />

or gas during operation.<br />

point for postmortem excision of some system<br />

surfaces.<br />

The major flow patterns are shown in Fig. 2.4.<br />

Usually the pump bowl, which had a fluid capacity of<br />

4.8 ft3, was operated about 60% full. Although the<br />

overficw pipe inlet was well above the liquid level and<br />

CRPSUCE<br />

CRCE<br />

OVERFLOW<br />

PIP€<br />

UFFGAS<br />

LINE<br />

6<br />

was protected from spray, overflow rates of several<br />

pounds per hour (0.1 to 10) resulted in the accumulation,<br />

in a toroidal overflow tank below the pump, of<br />

overflow salt, which was blown back to the punip bowl<br />

at the necessary intervals (hours to weeks). The<br />

overflow tank was connected to the main off-gas line,<br />

but because the pump bowl overflow line extended to<br />

the bottom of the overflow tank, little or no off-gas<br />

took this path except when the normal off-gas exit<br />

from the pump bowl had been appreciably restricted.<br />

It was desirable’ to remove as much of the xenon and<br />

krypton fission gases as possible, particularly to mitigate<br />

the hi$ neutron poison effect of 13’xe.<br />

Consequently, about 50 gpm of pump discharge liquid<br />

was passed into a segmented toroidal spray ring near the<br />

tog of the pump bowl. Many and Y8-in. perforations<br />

sent strong jets angled downward spurting into<br />

the liquid a few inches away, releasing bubbles,<br />

entraining much pump bowl gas - the larger bubbles<br />

of which returned rapidly to the surface - and<br />

vigorously mixing the adjacent pump bowl gas and<br />

liquid. An additional “fountain” flow of about Z 5 gpm<br />

came up between the volute casing seal and the inapeller<br />

shaft. Other minor leakages from the volute to the<br />

pump bowl also existed. At a net flow of 65 g p (8.7<br />

SUCTION<br />

Fig. 2.4. Flow patterns in the MSRE fuel pump.<br />

SHAFT<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-DWG 69- 101 7214<br />

CLEAN GAS<br />

\ .>


cfm) into a pump bowl salt volume of 2.9 ft3, the<br />

average residence time of salt in the pump bowl was<br />

about 20 sec.<br />

The pump bowl liquid flowed past skirts on the<br />

volute at an average velocity of 0.1 1 fps, accelerating to<br />

1.9 fps as the salt approached the openings to the pump<br />

suction. Entrained bubble size can be judged by noting<br />

that bubbles 8.04 cm (0.016 in.) in diameter are<br />

estimated by Stokes's law to rise at a velocity of 0.1 fps<br />

in pump bowl salt.<br />

The salt turbulence also provided an underflow entry<br />

to the spiral metal baffle surrounding the sample<br />

capsule cage. The baffle, curved into a spirai about 3 in.<br />

in diameter, with about one-fourth of a turn overlap,<br />

extended from the sample transfer tube at the top of<br />

the pump bowl, downward through both gas and liquid<br />

phases, to the sloping bottom of the pump bowl, with a<br />

half-circle notch on the bottom near the pump bowl<br />

wall to facilitate liquid entry. Subsequent upflow<br />

permitted release of associated gas bubbles to the vapor<br />

space, with liquid outflow through the '/8-iri. spiral gap.<br />

Around the entry from the sample transfer tube at<br />

the top of the pump bowl was a cage of five vertical<br />

'/4-in. rods ternlinating in a ring near the bottom of the<br />

pump bowl. Sample capsules, specimen exposure devices,<br />

or capsules of materials to be dissolved in the fuel<br />

were lowered by a steel cable into this cage for varying<br />

periods of time and then withdrawn upward into the<br />

sample transfer tube to be removed. Normally (when<br />

not in use) a slight gas flow passed down the tube, clue<br />

to leakage of protective pressurization around closed<br />

block valves (gas was also passed down the transfer tube<br />

during exposure of many of the above-mentioned<br />

items).<br />

Gas could enter the sample baffle region f~orn the<br />

liquid and by diffusion via the spiral gap. The rate of<br />

passage has not been determined, but some evidence<br />

will be considered in connection with gas saniples.<br />

Purge gas, normally purified helium, entered the<br />

pump bowl gas space through the annulus between the<br />

rotating impeller shaft and the shield plug, normally at<br />

a rate of 2.4 std literslmin. Some sealing oil vapor, of<br />

the order of a few grams per day, is indicated to have<br />

entered by this path. Two bubbler tubes (0.39 std<br />

Iiter/min each) and a bubbler reference line (0.15 std<br />

liter/min) also introduced gas into the pump bowl. With<br />

m average pump bowl gas volume of 1.9 ft' at 5 psig<br />

and 65O"c, a flow of 3.3 std Iiterslmin corresponds to a<br />

gas holdup time of about 6.5 min.<br />

In order to prevent spray from entering the overflow<br />

line or the two 'I2 -in. off-gas exit lines in the top of the<br />

pump bowl, a sheet metal skirt or roof extended across<br />

the pump bowl gas space from the central shaft housing<br />

to the top of the toroidal spray ring. That same aerosol<br />

salt or organic mist stili was borne out of the pump<br />

bowl was indicated by the occasional plugging of the<br />

off-gas line and by the examination of materials<br />

recovered from this region, to be discussed in a<br />

subsequent section.<br />

The areas of the Mastdloy N surfaces exposed to<br />

circulating salt in the hlSRE fuel loop were given' ' as<br />

follows:<br />

Pump 30 ft2<br />

Piping 45 ft2<br />

Heat exchanger 346 ft'<br />

Reactor vessel 431 ft'<br />

852 ft2 (0.7315 x lo6 cm2)<br />

The areas of the graphite surfaces in the core of the<br />

MSRE are estimated from design data' to be:<br />

Fuel channels 132.35 m2<br />

Tops and buttoms 3.42 m2<br />

Contact edges 80.25 ma<br />

Support lattice bars 8.95 m2<br />

224.94 m2 (2.2497 X IO6 cm2)<br />

Thus the total surface area of the MSRE fuel loop Is<br />

3.041 x cm2.<br />

Properties of the MSRE fuel salt have been given by<br />

Cantor,' ' Grimes.' ' and Thoma.' Some of these are<br />

given in Table 2.1. As given by Thoma,' the average<br />

composition of the fuel (as determined by chemical<br />

analysis) was that shown in Table 2.2.<br />

The power released in the reactor as a result of<br />

nuclear fission was evaluated both from heat balance<br />

clata' 9' and from changes in isotopic camposition.'<br />

An originally assigned full power of 8 EIIW, corrected<br />

for various small deviations in fluid properties and<br />

instrument calibrations, gave a new heat balance fuU<br />

power of 7.65, and the value based on isotopic changes<br />

was 7.4 MW. Uncertainties in physical and nuclear<br />

properties of the salt and in reactor instrument calibration<br />

are sufficient to account for the difference.<br />

At a reactor power of 7.4 MW the mean power<br />

density in the circulating fuel was 3.6 &V per cubic<br />

centimeter of salt. About 88% of thelfissions occurred<br />

in the core fuel channels, about 6% in the upper head,<br />

and 3% each in the lower head and in the outer<br />

downflow annulus.' The average thermal-neutron flux<br />

in the circulationg fuel was about 2.9 X 10' ' neutrons<br />

sec-' for 2 3 5 fuel ~ at full power. The thermal-neutron<br />

flux was about 3 X 18l3 neutrons cmP2<br />

sec-' near the center of the core and declined both


Viscosity<br />

Table 2.1. Physical properties of the MSRE fuel salt<br />

Property Value Estimated precision<br />

Thermal conductivity<br />

Electrical conductavnty<br />

Liquidus temperature<br />

Keat capacity<br />

Liquid<br />

Solid<br />

Density<br />

Liquid<br />

Ex pansivit y<br />

Compressibility<br />

Vapor pressure<br />

Surface tension<br />

Solubility of He, Kr, Xe<br />

Isuchoric heat capacity, Cv<br />

o(centipoises) = 0.116 exp [ 3755/T("K)]<br />

0.010 watt cm-I "6-8<br />

K = -2.22 f 6.81 X BO-3T("C)a<br />

434°C<br />

Sonic velocity<br />

500"&': pz 3420 KXI/SeC<br />

600°C: y = 33 10 m/sec<br />

700°C: p =: 3200 m/ser<br />

Thermal diffusivity<br />

500°C: D = 2.0g x 10-3 im'isec<br />

600°C: D = 2.14 X crn2/sec<br />

700"~: D = 2.18 x cma/sec<br />

Kinematic viscosity<br />

500"~: Y= 7.4, x cm2/sec<br />

600°C: I.'> 4.36 X IO-' cin'lsec<br />

700"~: Y= 2.8, x IO-.' cni'isec<br />

PraIidtl RUInbeK<br />

500°C: PT = 35.6<br />

600°C: PI = 20.4<br />

900°C: Pr = 13.E<br />

500 6.6 0.13 0.03<br />

600 10.6 0.55 0.17<br />

700 15.1 1.7 0.47<br />

ROO 20.1 4.4 2.0<br />

x 10 -R moles cm-' melt atm-'<br />

500 0.489 16.2 6.91 1.17<br />

600 0.482 15.9 6.81 1.18<br />

780 0.475 15.7 6.72 1.20<br />

*3%<br />

-93%<br />

fl%<br />

f18%<br />

Factor 3<br />

Factor 50 from 500 to 700°C<br />

+30, -10910<br />

2 Factoa 10<br />

'Applicable over the temperature range 530 to 45CF'"C. The va!ue of electrical conductivity given hcre was estimated by<br />

G. D. Robbins and is based on the assumption that ZrF4 arid UF4 behave identically with ThF4; see 4;. D. Robbins and<br />

A. S. GaHanter,MSR kog~am Semiennu. hog. Rep. k~g. 31. 1970, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4548, p. 159; ibid., ORNl.4622, p. 10B.


9<br />

Table 2.2. Average composition of MSRE fuel dt<br />

Runs 4- 14‘ Runs 16-2Qb<br />

LIF, mole 75 64.1 + 1.1 64.5 2 1.5<br />

&E’?, mole % 30.0 ? 1.0 30.4 ’ 1.5<br />

ZrE’4. mole 76 5.0 t 0.19 4.90 t 0.16<br />

UY.4 , mole 5%<br />

Cr, ppm<br />

0.809 f 0.024 0.134 2 0.004<br />

64 ? 13 (range 35-80) 80 2 14 (range 35-100)<br />

Fe, win 130 ? 45 157 + 43<br />

Ni, ppm 64 f 61 46 2 14<br />

‘Operation with 2 3 5 fuel. ~<br />

’Operation with 233U fuel.<br />

radiafly and axially to values about 18% of this near the<br />

graphite periphery. The fast flux was about three times<br />

the thermal flux in most cure regions.<br />

B. E. Prince’<br />

computed the central core flux for<br />

233U to be about 0.8 X BO1 neutrons cm-’ sec-’per<br />

megawatt of reactor power. or about 6 X IO’ at full<br />

power. The relatively higher flux fur the a33U fuel<br />

resuits from the absence of ’ 38U as well as the greater<br />

neutron productivity of the ’ ’ U.<br />

U fuelq ’ ’Pu<br />

Across the period of operation with<br />

was formed more rapidly than it was burned, and the<br />

concentration rose until about 5% of the fissions were<br />

coritributed by this nuclide. During the 3U operations,<br />

the plutonium concentration fell moderately but<br />

was replenished by fuel addition. The resultant effects<br />

on fission yields will be discussed later.<br />

1. P. N. Haubenreich and J. R. Engel, “Experience<br />

with the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment,” Nucl. Appl.<br />

Teciinol, 8, 118-37 (February 1978).<br />

2. R. e. Robertson, MSRE Design and Operatioris<br />

Report, Part 1. Description of Reactor Design, <strong>ORNL</strong>-<br />

TM-728 (January 1965).<br />

3. J. R. Engel, P. N Haubenreich, and A. Houtzeel,<br />

Spray, Mist, Bubbles, and Foam in the Molten Salt<br />

Reactor Experiment, <strong>ORNL</strong>TM-3027 (June 1940).<br />

4. W. B. McDonald, “MSRE Design and Construction,”<br />

MSR Frogram Semiannu. Brog. Rep. July<br />

31,1964, ORNk-3408, pp. 22-83.<br />

5. H. E. McCoy et al., “New Developments in<br />

Materials for Molten-Salt Reactors,” IVMCI. Appi. Tech-<br />

nol. 8, 156-69 (February 1WQ).<br />

~-___<br />

6. A. Taboada. “Metallurgical Developments,” MSR<br />

Program Semiannu. I9rog-r. Repp. JuZy 31, 1964, OWL-<br />

3708, pp. 330-72.<br />

’7. D. Scott, Jr., “Component Development in Support<br />

of the MSRE,” MSR Frograni Senz2nnu. Prop.<br />

Rep. Jui‘y 31, 1964, <strong>ORNL</strong>-3788, pp. 167- 90.<br />

8. R. J. Kedl. Fluid Qvnckmic Studies of the Molten<br />

Sult Reactor Experiment [MSRE) Core, OWL-<br />

ThI-3229 QNov. 19, 19’30).<br />

9. J. R. Engel and R. 63. Steffy, Xeum Behavior in<br />

the Molten Salt Reactor Eq?erimeizt, ORX-TM-3464<br />

(October 1971).<br />

10. J. A. Watts and .I. R. Engel, “Hastelloy N Surface<br />

Areas in MSFE,” internal memorandum MSR-69-32 to<br />

R. E. Thoma, kpr. 16, 1969- (Internal document - no<br />

further dissimination au thhorized.)<br />

1 1. S. Cantor, Physical Properties of Molten-Salt<br />

Reactor Fi4eE, Cool~tit and Flus11 Salts, <strong>ORNL</strong>-TM-23 I6<br />

(August 1968).<br />

12. W. R. Grimes, “Molten Salt React01 Chemistry,”<br />

Nw~. AP@. Tcdmtal. 8(2), 139- 55 (February 1970).<br />

13. R. E. Tlionia, Chemical Aspects of MSM Operatiun,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4658 (December 1971).<br />

14. 61. H. Gabbard, Reactor Power Measurement and<br />

Heat Transfer Performance in the MSlE, OWL-Th.l-<br />

3082 (May 1971).<br />

15. C. H. Gabbard and P. N. Haubenreich, “Test of<br />

Coolant Salt FIowmeter and Conclusions,” MSR Program<br />

Semiannu. Progr, Rep. Feb. 28, 6971, OHPNE-<br />

4676, pp. 17-18.<br />

16. J. R. Engel, “NucEear Characteristics of the<br />

MSRE,” MSR Program Semdariw. Bogr. Rep. July 31,<br />

1965, OWL-3708, pp. 83-1 14.<br />

17. €3. E. Prince, “‘Other Neutronic Characteristics of<br />

ruISRE with ’ u ~uel,” MLYR fiogarn Semiannu.<br />

Progr. Rep. Aug 31, 1967, OW&-4191, pp. 54-61.


A sketchy chronalugy of the MSRE, with an eye<br />

toward factors affecting fission product measurements,<br />

will be given below. More complete details are available.<br />

3.1 Operation with u Fuel<br />

The MSRE was first loaded with flush salt on<br />

November 28, 1964; after draining the flush salt, 452<br />

kg of carrier salt ('LiF-BeF? -ZrF4 ~ 62.4-32.3-5.3 mole<br />

5%; mot. wt 40.2) was added to a drain tank fullowed by<br />

235 kg of 7LiF-23sUF4 eutectic salt (72.3-27.7 mole<br />

%, mol. wt 105.7) in late April. Circulation of this salt<br />

was followed by addition of 7kiF-235UF4 (93% en-<br />

riched) eutectic salt beginning on May 24, 1965.<br />

Criticality was achieved on June 1: 1965. Addition of<br />

enriched capsules of ' LilF-' UE4 eutectic salt con-<br />

tinued throughout zero-power experiments, which in-<br />

cluded controlled calibration. The loop charge at the<br />

beginning of power operation consisted of a total of<br />

4498 kg of salt (nominal composition by weighi, 'Li,<br />

11.08%; We. 0.35%; Zr, 11.04%; and U, 4.6285%). with<br />

390 kg in the drain tank (ref. 2, Table 2.15).<br />

Operation of the MSRE was commonly divided into<br />

runs, during which salt was circulating in the fuel loop;<br />

between runs the salt was returned to the drain tanks,<br />

mixing with the residual salt there.<br />

Run 4, in which significant power was first achieved,<br />

began circulation in late December 1965; the approach<br />

to power has been taken arbitrarily as beginning at<br />

noon January 23> 1966, for purposes of accounting for<br />

fission product production and decay.<br />

Significant events during the subsequent operation of<br />

the MSRE until the termination of operation on<br />

December 12, 1969, are shown in Fig. 3.1. The time<br />

period and accumulated power for the various runs are<br />

shown in Table 3. I.<br />

Soon after significant power levels were reached,<br />

difficulty in maintaining off-gas flow developed. De-<br />

posits of varnish-like material had plugged smdi pas-<br />

sages and a small filter in the off-gas system. A small<br />

amount of oil in the off-gas hoidup pipe and from the<br />

pump had evidently been vaporized and polymerized by<br />

the heat and radiation from gas-borne fission products.<br />

The problem was relieved by instalhtion of a larger and<br />

more efficient filter downstream from the holdup pipe.<br />

On resumption of operation in April 1966, full power<br />

was reached in run 6 after a brief shutdown to repair an<br />

electrical short in the fuel sampIer-enricher drive. The<br />

first radiochemical analyses of salt samples were re-<br />

ported for this run. Run 7, which was substantially at<br />

full power, was terminated in late July by failure of the<br />

blades and huh of the main blower in the heat removal<br />

system. While a replacement was redesigned, procured,<br />

and installed, the array of surveillance specimens was<br />

removed, and examinations (reported later) were made.<br />

Some buckling and cracking of the assembly had<br />

occurred4 because movement resulting from differenrid<br />

expansion had been inhibited bp entrapment and<br />

freezing of salt within tongue-and-groove joints. Modifications<br />

in the new assembly permitted its continued<br />

use, with removals after runs 11 14, and 18, when it<br />

was replaced by an asseanbiy of another design.<br />

Run 8 was halted to permit installation of a blower;<br />

run 9, to remove from the off-gas jumper flange above<br />

the pump bowl some flush salt deposited by an overfill.<br />

During run 3 an analysis for the oxidation state of the<br />

fuel resulted in a U3+/U4+ value of~.l%. Because values<br />

nearer 1% were desired, additions of metallic beryllium<br />

as rod (or powder) were made' using the samplerenricher,<br />

interspersed with some samples from time to<br />

time to determine U3'/U4".<br />

During run 10 the first "freeze-valve" gas sample was<br />

taken from the pump bowI. The series of samples b e ~ n<br />

at this time will be discussed in a later section. Run IO<br />

operated at full power for a month, with a scheduled<br />

termination to permit inspection of the new blower.<br />

Run 11 lasted for 102 days, essentially at full power,<br />

and was terminated on 'schedule to permit routine<br />

exarninaticns and return of the core surveillance specimen<br />

assembly. During this run a total of761 g of' 35U<br />

was added (as EiP;-UF4 eutectic salt) without difficulty<br />

through the sampler-enricher, while thc: reactor was<br />

in operation at fulI power. After completion of maintenance<br />

the reactor was operated at full power during<br />

run 12 for 42 days. During this period, 1527 g of<br />

' 35 eT was added using the sampler-enricher. Beryllium<br />

additions were followed by samples showing<br />

1J3'/U4' of 1.3 and 1.0%. Attempts to untangle the<br />

sampler drive cable severed it, dropping the sample<br />

capsule attached to it, thus terminating run 12. The<br />

cable latch was soon recovered: the capsule was subsequently<br />

found in the pump bowl during the final<br />

postmortem examination. Run lib commenced on<br />

September 20) after some coolant pump repairs, and<br />

continued without fuel drain for 188 days; the reactor<br />

was operated subcritical for several days in November<br />

to permit electrical repairs to the sampler-enricher.<br />

Reactur power and temperature were varied to determine<br />

the effect of operating conditions on ' 35~e stripping.' During run 14 the first subsurface salt<br />

samples were taken using a freeze-valve capsule.


SALT IN<br />

FUEL LOPP<br />

(966<br />

1467<br />

J<br />

J<br />

A<br />

S<br />

J<br />

J<br />

A<br />

POWER<br />

0 2 4 6 8 K J<br />

FUEL POWER (Mw)<br />

FLUSH 0<br />

DYNAMICS TESTS<br />

NVESTIGATE<br />

OFFGAS PLUGGING<br />

REPLACE VALVES<br />

AND FILTERS<br />

RAISE POWER<br />

REPAIR SAMPLER<br />

ATTAIN FULL POWER<br />

CHECK CONTAINMENT<br />

FULL- POWER RUN<br />

- MAIN BLOWER FAILURE<br />

REPLACE MAIN BLOWER<br />

MELT SALT FROM GAS LINES<br />

REPLACE CORE SAMPLES<br />

TEST CONTAINMENT<br />

RUN WITH ONE BLOWER<br />

> INSTALL SECOND BLOWER<br />

} ROD CUT OFFGAS LINE<br />

CHECK CONTAINMENT<br />

30-doy RUN<br />

AT FULL POWER<br />

} REPLACE AIR LINE<br />

DISCONNECTS<br />

SUSTAINED WERATION<br />

AT HIGH POWER<br />

RPLACE CORE SAMPLES<br />

TEST CONTAINMENT<br />

REPAIR SAMPLER<br />

11<br />

SALT IN<br />

FUEL LOOP POWER<br />

0<br />

N<br />

0 -P I<br />

FUEL<br />

FLUSH 0<br />

1<br />

0 2 4 6 8 4 0<br />

POWER (Mw)<br />

Fig. 3.1. Chronological outline of MSRE operations.<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-LWG 69-7293R2<br />

XENON STRIPPING<br />

EXPERIMENTS<br />

t REPLACE<br />

INSPECTION AN0<br />

MAINTENANCE<br />

CORE SAMPLES<br />

TEST AND MOOIFY<br />

FLVORINE MSPOSAL<br />

SYSTEM<br />

PROCESS FLUSH SALT<br />

PROCESS FUEL SALT<br />

LOAD URANIUM-233<br />

REMOVE LOADING MVICE<br />

233U ZERO-POWER<br />

PHYSICS EXPERIMENTS<br />

INVESTIGATE FUEL<br />

SALT BEHAVIOR<br />

CLEAR OFFGAS LINES<br />

REPAIR SWPLER WO<br />

CONTROL ROD DRIVE<br />

233U DYNAMKS TESTS<br />

INVESTIGATE GAS<br />

IN FUEL LOOP<br />

HIGH-POWER OPERATION<br />

TO MEASURE 233U pc/wa<br />

INVESTIGATE COVER Gps.<br />

XENON, AND FISSION<br />

FRODUCT BEHAVIOR<br />

ADD PLUTONIUM<br />

IRRADIATE ENCAPSULATED U<br />

MAP F.P. DEPOSITON WITH<br />

GAMMA SPECTROMETER<br />

MEASURE TRITIUM,<br />

SAMPLE FUEL<br />

REMOVE CORE ARRAY<br />

PUT REACTOR IN STANDBY


Run Date started Date drained Run hours<br />

Cumulative total Cumulative effective full-<br />

hoursa power hours<br />

4 1-23-6Ga 1-2666 80P 80.8 4<br />

5 2-13-66 2-1666 55 .O 564.5 5<br />

6A 4-8-66 4-22-66 342.1 2,146.3 54<br />

6B 4-25-66 4-23-66 107.5 2,312.7 115<br />

6C 5-8-66 5 -2 8-6 6 475.0 3,005.0 374<br />

7A 6-12-56 6-28-66 348.1 3,711.4 6 84<br />

75 6-30-66 7-23-66 553.0 4,355.7 1,055<br />

Surveillance specimen assembly removed. New assembly installed.<br />

8 10-8-66 10-31-66 546.1 6,747.6 1,386<br />

9 11-7-66 1 I-20-66 301.2 4,213.0 1,545<br />

10 12-14-66 1-18-67 824.2 8,628.5 2,262<br />

I1 1-28-67 5-1 1-67 246 1.4 11,340.6 4,510<br />

Surveillance specimen assembly removed. Reinstalled.<br />

12 6-1 8-67 8-1 1-67 1217.8 13.548.3 5.566<br />

13 9-1567 8-18-64 77.8 14,44 1.7 5,626<br />

14 9-20-67 3-25-68 4468.2 18,997.0 9,005<br />

Sarveillance specimen assembly removed, reinstalled. Off-gas specimen instailed.<br />

235U removed from carrier salt by fluorination. 233U fuel added.<br />

15 10-2-68 11-28-68 i372.1 24,956.1 9,006.5<br />

14 12-1 2-68 12-17-68 111.0 25,404.0 9,006.5<br />

17 1-13-69 4-1069 2085.8 28,146.1 10,489<br />

18A 4-12-69 4-15-69 74.7 28.269.3 10,553<br />

18B 4-16-69 6-1-69 1104.4 29,402.6 11,547<br />

Surveillance specimen assembly removed. New assembly installed.<br />

19 8-17-69 11-2-69 1856.7 33,098.7 12,790<br />

20 11-25-69 12-12-69 396.7 34,055.3 13,172<br />

I:inal drain. Surveillance specimen assembly removed. System to standby.<br />

Postmortem, Januxry 1941. Segments from core graphite, rod thimble, heat exchanger, pump bowlril, freeze valve. System to<br />

standb p .<br />

“From beginning of appruach to power, taken as noon, Jan. 23, 1966. Prior circulation in run 4 not included.<br />

After the scheduled termination of run 14. the core<br />

surveillance specimen assembly was removed for exami-<br />

nation and returned. The off-gas jumper line was<br />

replaced; the examination of the removed line is<br />

reported below. A specimen assembly was inserted in<br />

the off-gas line.<br />

AI1 major objectives of the * ’ U operation had been<br />

achieved, culminated by the sustained final run of over<br />

six months at full power, with no indications of any<br />

operating instability, fuel instability, significant corro-<br />

sion, or other evident threats to the stability or ability<br />

to sustain operation indefinitely.<br />

3.2 Operation with 3 3 ~uel ~<br />

It remained to change the fuel and to operate with<br />

fuel, which will be the normal fuel for a<br />

2 3 s ~<br />

molten-salt breeder reactor. This was accomplished<br />

across the sunimer of 1968. The fuel, in the drain tanks,<br />

was treated with fluorine gas, and the volatilized UF6<br />

was caught in traps of granular NaF. Essentially all 218<br />

kg of uranium was recovered,” and no fission pruducts<br />

(except ”i\;b), inbred plutonium, or other substances<br />

were removed in this way. The carrier salt was then<br />

reduced by hydrogen sparging and metallic zirconium<br />

treatment, filtered to remove reduced corrosion prod-<br />

ucts, and returned to the reactor. A mixture of * s UF4<br />

and 7LiF was added to the drain tanks, and some<br />

UF4 was included to facilitate desired isotope ratio<br />

determinations.<br />

Addition of capsules using the sampler-enricher per-<br />

mitted criticality to be achieved, and on October 8,<br />

1968, the US. Atomic Energy Commission Chairman,


Glenn Seaborg, a discoverer of 2 3 3 ~ first , took the<br />

reactor to significant power using U fuei.<br />

The uranium concentration with 233kj fuel (83%<br />

enriched) was about 0.3 mole 70. The fuel also<br />

contained about 540 g of 239Pu, which had been<br />

formed during the 245LJ operation when the fuel<br />

contained appreciable U.<br />

During the final months of 1948, zero-power physics<br />

experiments were accompanied by an increase in the<br />

entrained gas in the fuel. Beryllium was added to halt a<br />

rise in the chromium content of the fue1. Some finely<br />

divided iron was recovered from the pump bowl using<br />

sample capsules containing magnets. During a subsequent<br />

shutdown to combine all fuei-containing salt in<br />

the drain tank for base-line isotopic analysis, a stricture<br />

in the off-gas line was removed, with some of the<br />

material involved being recovered on a filter.<br />

At the beginning of run 17 in January 1969, the<br />

power level was regularly increased, with good nuclear<br />

stability being attained at full power. Transients attributed<br />

to behavior of entrained gas were studied by<br />

varying pump speed and other variables; argon was used<br />

as cover gas for a time. Freeze-valve gas samples and salt<br />

samples were taken, and a new double-wail-type sample<br />

capsule was employed. Further samples were taken for<br />

isotopic analysis. The lower concentrations of uranium<br />

in the fuel led to unsuccessful efforts to determine the<br />

U3+/U4+ ratio. However, beryllium additions were continued<br />

as @+ concentration increases indicated.<br />

In May 1969, rcstrictions in the off-gas lines appeared<br />

and subsequently also in the off-gas line from the<br />

overflow tank. Operation continued, and run 18 was<br />

terminated as scheduled on June 1 ..<br />

Surveillance specimens were removed, and an assembly<br />

of different design was installed. This assembly<br />

contained specially encapsulated uranium, as well as<br />

material specimens. A preliminary survey of the distribution<br />

of fission products was conducted, using a<br />

collimated Ge(Li) diode gamma spectrometer.6 This<br />

was repeated more extensively after run 19.<br />

After completing scheduled routine maintenance, the<br />

reactor was returned to power in August 1969 for run<br />

19. Plutonium fluoride was added, using the samplerenricher,<br />

as a first step in evaluating the possibility of<br />

using this material as a significant component of<br />

molten-salt reactor fuel.<br />

At the end of run 19, the reactor was drained without<br />

flushing to facilitate an extensive gamma spectrometer<br />

survey of the location of fission products.<br />

The fate of tritium in the system was of considerable<br />

interest, and a variety of experiments were conducted<br />

and samples taken to account fur the behavior of this<br />

product of reactor operation.’ ,8<br />

13<br />

Because salt aerosol appeared to accompany the gas<br />

taken into gas sample capsules, a few double-walled<br />

sample capsules equipped with sintered metal filters<br />

over the entrance nozzles were used in run 28.<br />

After final draining of the reactor on December 13.<br />

1969, the surveillance specimen assembly was removed<br />

for examination, and the reactor was put in standby.<br />

In January 1971 the reactor cell was opened. and<br />

several segments of reactor components were excised<br />

for examination. These included the sampler-enricher<br />

from the pump bowl, segments of a control rod thimble<br />

and a central graphite bar from the core. segments of<br />

heat exchanger tubes and shell, and a drain line freeLe<br />

valve in which a small stress crack appeared during final<br />

drain operations. The openings in the reactor were<br />

scaled, and the reactor crypt was closed.<br />

References<br />

1. P. N. Maubenreich and J. R. Engel, “Experience<br />

with the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment,” Nucl. Appl.<br />

Technol. 8(2), 18 -36 (1969).<br />

2. W. E. Thonia, Chemical Aspects of MSRB Operation,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4658 (December IVI).<br />

3. MSR Progrum Semiunnu. Progr. Rep. (a) Jdy 31,<br />

1964, <strong>ORNL</strong>-3708; (b) Feb. 28, 1965, 0RNL-3812:(~)<br />

Aug. 31, 1965, QRNL-3842; (d) Feb. 28, 1966,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-3936; (e) Aug. 31, 1966, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4037; (f) Feb.<br />

28,1967,<strong>ORNL</strong>-4119;(g)A~g. Si, 1967, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4191:<br />

(h) Feb. 29. IY68, OKNL-4254; (i) Rug. 31. 1968,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4344: 0) Feb. 28, 196Y, OKNL-4396; (k) Au~.<br />

SI, 1969, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4449; (l) Feb. 28, 1990, QRNL-4548;<br />

(.e) Rug. 31, 1970, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4622; (rz) Feb. 28, i97I1,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4676; (0) Aug. 31, 1971, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4728.<br />

4. W. H. Cook, “MSRE Matcrials Surveillance Testing,”<br />

MSK Progrum Semiunizu. Bog. Rep. Aug. 31,<br />

1966, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4037, pp. 97 -103.<br />

5. 9. R. Engel and R. 6. Steffy, Xenon Behavior in<br />

the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, <strong>ORNL</strong>-TM-3464<br />

(October 1971).<br />

4. A. Houtzeel and F. F. Dyer, A Study ofB;iSsion<br />

?roducts in the Molten Sdt Reactor Experimerrt by<br />

Gamma Spectrometry, <strong>ORNL</strong>-TM-3 15 1 (August 1972).<br />

7. P. N. Haubenreich, (a) “Tritium in the MSE:<br />

Calculated Production Rates and Observed Amounts,”<br />

QRNL-CF-70-2-7 (Feb. 4, 1970); (6) “A Review of<br />

Production and Observed Distributions of Tritium in<br />

MSRE in the Light of Recent Findings,” OWL-<br />

CF-41-8-34 (Aug. 23. 1971). (Internal d~ci~ments - nu<br />

further dissemination authorize d).<br />

8. R. B. Briggs, “Tritium in Molten Salt Reactors,”<br />

Reactor Technol. 14(4)? 335 -42 (Winter 1971-72).


Discussions of the chemistry of the elements of major<br />

significance in molten-salt reactor fuels have been made<br />

by Grimes,’ Thoma,’ and Bae~.~ Some relevant highlights<br />

will be summarized here.<br />

The original fuel of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment<br />

consisted essentially of a mixture of ‘kiF-BeF2 -<br />

ZrF4-UF4 (65-23-5-0.9 mole %). The fuel was circulated<br />

at about 650°C; contacting graphite bars in the<br />

reactor vessel and passing then through a pump and<br />

heat exchanger. The equipment was constructed of<br />

Hastelloy N, a Ni-Mo-Cr-Fe alloy (41-17-7-5 wt 5%).<br />

SmaU amounts of structural elements, particularly<br />

cliromiuna, iron, and nickel, were found in the salt.<br />

The concentration of fission product elements in the<br />

molten salt fuel is lower than that of constituent or<br />

structural elements. The following estimate will indicate<br />

the limits on the concentration of fission products<br />

evenly distributed in the fuel.<br />

For a single nuclide of fission yield y, at a given<br />

power P, the number of existing nuclide atoms in the<br />

salt is<br />

AZFXHPX~XT<br />

where F is the system fission rate at unit power and T IS<br />

the effective time of operation. This is the actual time<br />

of operation for a stable nuclide and equals l/X at<br />

steady state for a radioactive nuclide. The contribution<br />

to the mole fraction of the fission product nuclide in<br />

4.5 X 1Q6 g of salt of molecular weight 40 is then<br />

A 4.5 x lo6<br />

x= 6X 40<br />

As an example, for a single nuclide of 1% yield and<br />

30-day half-life at 8 MW. A = 9.4 X IO2’ atoms and<br />

X = 1.3 X IOs7. Because the inventory of a fission<br />

product element involves only a few nuciides, many<br />

radioactive. the mole fractions are typically of the order<br />

of I x or less.<br />

Traces of other substances may have entered the salt<br />

in the pump bowl, where salt was brought into vigorous<br />

contact with the purified helium cover 935. Flow of this<br />

gas to the uff-gas system served to remove xenon and<br />

krypton fission gases from the slytern. A slight leakage<br />

or vxporization of oil into the pump bowl used as a<br />

lubricant and seal for the circulating pump introduced<br />

hydrocarbons and, by decomposition, carbon and hy-<br />

drogen into the system. For the several times the<br />

reactor vesse1 was opened for retrieval of surveillance<br />

assemblies and for maintenance, the possible ingress of<br />

cell air should be taken into account.<br />

The binary molten fluoride system LiP-BeF2 (66-34<br />

mole %) melts4 at about 459°C. The solution chemistry<br />

of many substances in this solvent has been discussed<br />

by Baes.3 Much of the redox and oxide precipitation<br />

chemistry can be summarized in terms of lhe free<br />

energy of formation of undissolved species.<br />

Free energies of formation of various species calcu-<br />

lated at 650°C largely from Baes’s data are shown in<br />

Table 4.1. The elements of the tabk are listed in terms<br />

of the relative redox stability of the dissolved ffuorides.<br />

Table 4.1. Free energy of formation at 65O’C (AC’~, kcdl<br />

Li’. Be+, and F are at uait activity; all uthers,<br />

activities in nrole fraction units<br />

~~ ~ ~<br />

SoIid<br />

- 363 36<br />

- 344.67<br />

-34 1.80<br />

- 123.00<br />

3 10.92<br />

-389.79<br />

-221.08<br />

-316.93<br />

-185.39<br />

-2 19.42<br />

-179.14<br />

32.4<br />

( 150.7)<br />

-4.5 to 8.5<br />

-138.18<br />

121.58<br />

-99.81<br />

Dissolved in<br />

LiFa2BeE2<br />

126.49<br />

-354.49<br />

356.19<br />

-332.14<br />

-216.16<br />

103.37<br />

44.48<br />

- 300.88<br />

392.52<br />

308 10<br />

-392.92<br />

(-296.35)<br />

152.06<br />

-134.59<br />

- 11 3.40<br />

(-186.3)<br />

-50.29<br />

Gas<br />

-449.89<br />

-366.49<br />

306 65<br />

259 13<br />

-232 26<br />

-200 59<br />

-98 36<br />

-42 15<br />

-446 11<br />

-189 57<br />

66 12<br />

47 04<br />

-173 72<br />

\./


v.&+p<br />

As one example of the use of the free energy data, we<br />

will calculate the dissolved CrF2 concentration suffi-<br />

cient to hait the dissolution of chromium from Hastel-<br />

loy if no region of lower chromium potential can be<br />

developed as a $ink.<br />

For the reaction<br />

Cro(s) + 2UF4(dj = CrF,(d) t 2UFs(d),<br />

AG = - ~K.vX - 2 [ 392.52 - (--300.88)]<br />

= 3 1.22 kcal,<br />

-AGO -3 1.22<br />

log K = - - -7.39<br />

2.3RT/lQO0 4.233<br />

1ogK = log CrFz - log Cro 2 log (u4+/U3+) .<br />

If we assume U~+/U~+ - 100 and note that the<br />

chromium concentration in Hastelloy N is about 0.08<br />

mole fraction (log Cro = -1.10).<br />

log CrF, = 7.33 + (--I .lo><br />

+ 2 X 2.0 = -4.49 = log (3.2 X EQm5)<br />

A mole fraction of 3.2 X lo-’ curresponds to a weight<br />

concentration of 52 x 3.2 x IO-’//~O = 42 ppm Cr2+ in<br />

solution.<br />

To obtain a higher concentration of dissolved Cr2+,<br />

the solution would have to be more oxidizing. Further-<br />

more? the EIastelloy N surface during operation be-<br />

comes depleted in chromium, and a chromium sink of<br />

lower activity, Cr3Cz (equivalent to a mole fraction of<br />

about 0.016 to 8.01), may be formed; all this would<br />

require a somewhat more oxidizing regime to hold even<br />

this much Cr*+ in solution.<br />

The free energy data can be used to estimate the<br />

quantities in solution only when the species shown are<br />

dominant. Thus it is shown by Ting, Baes, and<br />

15<br />

Marnantov’ that under conditions of moderate concentrations<br />

of dissolved oxide, pentavalent niobium exists<br />

largely as an oxyfluoride, which may be stable enough<br />

for this rather than NbF4 to be the significant dissolved<br />

species under MSRE conditions.<br />

The stability of the various fluorides below chromium<br />

in the tabulation are such as to indicate that at the<br />

rcdox potential of the U4+/U3+ couple, only the<br />

elemental form will be present in appreciable quantity.<br />

In particular, tellurium6 vapor is much more stable<br />

than any of its fluoride vapors. Unless a ~ Q R<br />

stable<br />

species than those listed in the table exists in molten<br />

salt, these data indicate that tellurium would exist in<br />

the salt as a dissolved elemental gas or as a telluride ion.<br />

[No data are available on Te2(gj; etc., but such<br />

combinations would not much affect this view.]<br />

References<br />

1. W. W. Grimes, “Molten Salt Reactor Chernlstry,”<br />

Nucl. Appl. 8, 137 55 (1970).<br />

2. R. E. Thorna, Chemical Aspects o.f&fSRE Operutions,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4658 (December 197 1).<br />

3. C. F. Baes. Jr., “The Chernrstry and Thermodynamics<br />

of Molten Salt Reactor Fuels,” Ni~l Met. 15,<br />

6 17-44 (1 969)(USAEC COW-69080 B ).<br />

4. K. A. Rornberger, J . Braunstein. and W. E. Thorna,<br />

“New Electrochemical Measurements of the Liquidus in<br />

the LiF-BeFZ System - Congruency of Liz BeF4 )” J.<br />

P~Ys. Ci70~2. 76, 1154-59 (1972).<br />

5. 6. Trng, C. F. Baes, Jr., and G. Mamantov, “The<br />

Oxide Chemistry of Niobium in Molten LiF-BeF,<br />

Mixtures,” MSR Program Semiannu. Progr. Rep. Feb.<br />

29, 199.2, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4781, pp. 87-93.<br />

6. Free energies for tellurium fluorides given in Table<br />

4.1 were taken from I”. A. G. O’Ware, The Th‘hemdynaniic<br />

Properties of Some Chalcogen Fltdorides,<br />

ANL-73 15 (Ju~J~ 1968).


Molten-salt reactors generate the full array of fission<br />

products in the circulating fuel. The amount of any<br />

given nuclide is constantly changing as a result of<br />

concurrent decay and generation by fission. Also,<br />

certain fission product elements, particularly noble<br />

gases, noble metals, and others, may not remain in the<br />

salt because of limited solubility.<br />

For the development of information on fission<br />

product behavior from sample data, each nuclide of<br />

each sample must be (and here has been) furnished with<br />

a suitable basis of comparison calculated from an<br />

appropriate model, against which the observed values<br />

can be measured. The most useful basis is the total<br />

inventory, which is the number of atoms of a nuclide<br />

which are in existence at a given time as a result of all<br />

prior fissioning and decay. It is frequently useful to<br />

consider the salt as two parts, circulating fuel salt and<br />

drain tank salt, which are mixed at stated times. It is<br />

then convenient to express an inventory value as<br />

activity per gram of circulating fuel salt, affording for<br />

salt samples a direct comparison with observed activity<br />

per gram of sample.<br />

For deposits on surfaces, it is useful to calculate for<br />

cornparison the total inventory activity divided by the<br />

total surface area in the primary system.<br />

Some of the comparisons for gas samples will be<br />

based on accumulated inventory values, and others on<br />

production rate per unit of purge gas flow. These<br />

models will be deveioped in a later section.<br />

In the calculation of inventory from power history,<br />

we have in most cases found it adequate to consider the<br />

isotope in question as being a direct product of fission,<br />

or at most having only one significant precursor. For<br />

the nuclides of interest, it has generally not appeared<br />

necessary to account for production by neutron absorption<br />

by lighter nuclides. These assumptions permit us to<br />

calculate the amount of nuclide produced during an<br />

interval of steady relative power and bring it forward to<br />

a given point in real time, with unit power fission rate<br />

and yield as factorable items.<br />

In Table 5.1 we show yield and decay data used in<br />

inventory calculations. In the case of Orn Ag and<br />

34~s, neutron absorption with the stable element of<br />

the lighter chain produced the nuclide, and special<br />

calculations are required.<br />

The branching fraction of l2 9Sb to 29 rnTe is a<br />

factor in the net effective fkion yieid of Te. The<br />

Nuclear Data Sheets are to be revised' to indicate that<br />

this branching fraction is 0.157 (instead of the prior<br />

literature value of 0.36). A1i our inventory values and<br />

16<br />

5. INVENTORY<br />

calculations resulting from them have been proportionately<br />

altered to reflect this revision.<br />

The inventories for U operation were calculated<br />

by program FISK: using a fourth-order Runge-Kutta<br />

numerical integration method.<br />

Differential equations describing the formation and<br />

decay of each isotope were written, and time steps were<br />

defined which evenly divided each period into segments<br />

adequately shorter than the half-lives or other time<br />

constants of the equation. The program FISK was<br />

written in FORTRAN 3 and executed on a large-scale<br />

digital computer at <strong>ORNL</strong>. Good agreement was ob-<br />

tained with results from parallel integral calculations.<br />

The FISK calculation did not take into account the<br />

ingrowth of 239Pu during the operation with 235U<br />

fuel. The effect is slight except for O6 RU. we obtained<br />

values taking this into account in separate calculations<br />

using the integral method.<br />

For the many samples taken during operation with<br />

233U fuel, a one- or two-element integral equation<br />

calculation3 was made over periods of steady power.<br />

generally nut exceeding a day. Because the plutonium<br />

level was relatively constant (about 500 g total) during<br />

the 3U operation, weighted yields were used, as-<br />

suming4 that, of the fissions, 93 .% came from ' U,<br />

2.2% from 235tJ, and 4.3% from 239Pu.<br />

For irradiation fur an interval fl at a fission rate F<br />

and yield Y, followed by cooling for a time t2, the<br />

usual expressions3 for one- and twoelement chains are<br />

Fission -+ A + B -+<br />

where XI and X2 are decay constants for nuclides A and<br />

B.<br />

h program based on the above expressions was<br />

written in BASIC and executed periodically on a<br />

commercial time-sharing computer to provide a current<br />

inventory basis for incoming radiochemical data from<br />

recent samples.<br />

To remain as current as possible. the working power<br />

history was obtained by a daily logging of changes in


Table 5.1. Fission product data for inventory calculations<br />

Cnmuhtive fission yieida<br />

Chain lsutupe Half-life Fraction 234u 235u 23gh<br />

89 Sr 52 days 1 5.86 4.79 1.711<br />

90 Sr 28.1 years I 6.43 5.77 2.21<br />

91 sr 9.67 hr 1 5.57 5.81 2.43<br />

91 Y 59 days (l.0jC 5.57 5.81 2.43<br />

35 Zr 65 days 1 .0 6.05 6.20 4.97<br />

95 Nb 35 days (1.W 6.05 6.20 4.95<br />

99 Mo 64 hr 1 .o 4.80 6.06 6.10<br />

103 Ru 39.5 days 1 .0 1.80 3.00 5.64<br />

106 WU 368 days 1.0 0.24 0.38 4.57<br />

109 Ag Stabie (91 b + resonance) 0.044 0.030 1.40<br />

I10 Ag(m) 253days<br />

111 Ag 4.5 days 1 0.0242 0.0192 0.232<br />

125 Sb 2.7 years E<br />

0.084 0.021 0.115<br />

127 Te(rn) 100days 0.22 0.60 0.13 0.39<br />

129 Te(m) 34days 0.36b 2.00 0.80 2.ou<br />

132<br />

131<br />

Te<br />

I<br />

3.25 days<br />

8.05 davs<br />

1 .0<br />

1 .o<br />

4.40<br />

2.98<br />

4.24<br />

2.93<br />

5.10<br />

3.48<br />

133 Cs Stable (32 b +resonance) 5.48 6.61 6.53<br />

134 Cs 750 days<br />

137 cs 29.9 years 1 6.58 6.15 6.63<br />

140 Ba 12.8 days 1 5.40 4.85 5.56<br />

141 Cc 32.3 days 1 6.49 6.40 5.01<br />

144 Ce 284 days 1 4.41 5.62 3.93<br />

147 Nd 11.1 days 1 1.98 2.36 2.04<br />

€47 Pm 2.65 years 1 1.98 2.36 2.07<br />

“From M. J. Bell, Nuclear Transmutation Data, ORIGEN Code Library; L. E. McNeese,<br />

Engiiieering Drvebpment Studies for Molten-Salt Breeder Reactor b3-ocessirzg NO. 1,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-TM-31153, Appendix A (November 1970).<br />

’This is the value given in the earlier literature. The revised Nuclear Data Sheets wiil<br />

indicate that the branching fraction is 0.157.<br />

‘Parentheses indicate nominal values.<br />

reactor power indicated by nuclear instrumentation<br />

charts: the history so obtained agreed adequately with<br />

other determinations.<br />

In practice, the daily power Bog was processed by the<br />

computer to yield a power history which could remain<br />

stored in the machine. A file of reactor sample times<br />

and fill and drain times was also stored, as well as<br />

fission product chain data. It was thus possible to<br />

update and store the inventory of each nuclide at each<br />

sample time. A separate file for individual samples and<br />

their segments containing the available individual nu-<br />

clide counts and counting dates was then processed to<br />

give corrected nuclide data on a weight or other basis<br />

and, using the stored inventory data, a ratio to the<br />

appropriate reactor inventory per unit weight. The data<br />

for individual salt and gas samples were also accumu-<br />

lated for inclusion in a master file along with pertinent<br />

reactor operating parameters at the time of sampling.<br />

This file was used in preparing many tables for this<br />

report.<br />

Only one ad hoc adjustment was made in the<br />

inventory calculation. Radiochemical analyses in connection<br />

with the chemical processing of the salt to<br />

change from &I to u fuel indicated that ~ b ,<br />

which had continued to be produced from the 95 ZE. in<br />

the fuel when run 14 was shut down, was entirely<br />

removed from the salt in the reduction step in which<br />

the salt was treated with zirconium metal and filtered.<br />

To reflect this and provide meaningful Nb inventories<br />

for the next several months, the calculated 95Nb<br />

inventory was arbitrarily set at zero as of the time of<br />

reduction. This adjustment permitted agreement between<br />

inventory and observation during the ensuing<br />

interval as 95Nb grew back into the salt from decay of<br />

the Zr contained in it.<br />

In this report we have normally tabulated the activity<br />

of each nuciide per unit of sample as of the time of<br />

sampling and dso tabulated the ratio of this to<br />

inventory. For economy of space we then did not


.,. w . i<br />

6.1 Lade Samples<br />

Radiochemical analyses were obtained on salt samples<br />

taken from the pump bowl beginning in run 6, using the<br />

sampler-enricher’ J (Fig. 6.1). A tared hydrogen-fired<br />

copper capsule (ladle, Fig. 6.2) which could contain I O<br />

g of salt was attached to a cable and lowered by<br />

windlass past two containment gate valves down a<br />

slanted transfer tube unti1 it was below the surface of<br />

the liquid within the mist shield in the pump bowl.<br />

After an interval the capsule was raised above the latch,<br />

until the salt froze, and then was raised into the upper<br />

containment area and placed in a sealed transport<br />

container and transferred to the High Radiation Level<br />

Analytical Laboratory. Similar procedures were fol-<br />

lowed with other types of capsules to be described<br />

later. The various kinds of capsules had hemispherical<br />

ends and were 3/4-in.-diarn cylinders, 6 in. or less in<br />

length. Ladles were about 3 in. long.<br />

After removal from the transport container in the<br />

High Radiation Level Analytical Laboratory, the cable<br />

CAPSULE DRIVE UNIT<br />

LATCH-<br />

ACCESS PORT-<br />

AREA IC<br />

( PRIVARY CONTAINMENT)<br />

SAMPLE CAPSULE<br />

OPERATIONAL AND<br />

19<br />

6. SALT SAMPLES<br />

Fig. 6.1. Sampler-enricher schematic.<br />

was slipped off, and the capsule and contents were<br />

inspected and weighed. The top ofthe ladle was cut off.<br />

After this, the sample in the copper ladle bottom part<br />

was placed in a copper containment egg and agitated 45<br />

min in a pulverizer mixer, after which the powdered salt<br />

was transferred (Fig. 63) to a polyethylene bottle for<br />

retention or analysis. Data from 19 such samples, from<br />

run 6 to run 14, are shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 as<br />

ratios to inventory obtained from program FESK. Full<br />

data are given in Table 6.7, at the end of this chapter.<br />

There will be further discussion of the results.<br />

However, a broad overview will note that the noble-gas<br />

daughters and salt-seeking isotopes were generally close<br />

io inventory values, while the noble-metai group \vas<br />

not as high: and values appeared to be more erratic.<br />

Noblemetal nuclides were observed to be strongly<br />

deposited on surfaces experimentaliy exposed to pump<br />

bowl gas. This implied that some of the noblemetal<br />

activity observed for ladle salt samples could have been<br />

picked up in the passage through the pump bowl gas<br />

OHNL-3IC: 63-5848R


d *@<br />

,&-%<br />

20<br />

Fig. 6.2. Container f5a sampling MSRE salt.<br />

Fig. 6.3. Apparatus for removing MSRE salt from pulverizer-mixer to polyethylene sample bottEe.


Sample Date<br />

6-17L<br />

6-1 9L<br />

4-07L<br />

7-l0L<br />

7-12L<br />

8-05 L<br />

10-12L<br />

10-2OL<br />

11-08L<br />

11-126,<br />

11-22%<br />

11-456.<br />

ll-5BL<br />

11-52L<br />

11-54L<br />

1 1-58E<br />

12-066.<br />

12-246.<br />

14-22L<br />

14-20FV<br />

14-30FV<br />

14-63FV<br />

14-66FV<br />

Sample<br />

~- -<br />

6-17<br />

6-19<br />

7-04<br />

7-1 0<br />

7-1 2<br />

8-05<br />

10-12<br />

10-20<br />

11-08<br />

11-12<br />

11-22<br />

11-45<br />

11-51<br />

11-52<br />

11-54<br />

11-58<br />

12-06<br />

12-27<br />

14-22<br />

14-20FV<br />

14-30FV<br />

14-63FV<br />

14-66FV<br />

5-23-66<br />

5-26-66<br />

6-27-66<br />

7-6-66<br />

7-1 3-66<br />

10-8-66<br />

12-28-66<br />

1-9-67<br />

2-1 3-67<br />

2-21-67<br />

3-9-67<br />

4-17-67<br />

4-28-67<br />

5-1-67<br />

5-5-67<br />

5-8-67<br />

6-20-67<br />

7-1 7-67<br />

11-7-67<br />

11-4-67<br />

12-5-67<br />

2-27-68<br />

3-5-68<br />

21<br />

Table 6.1. Nobie-gas daughters and salt-seeking isotopes in dt samples<br />

from MSRE pump bowl during uranium235 operation<br />

Expressed as ratio to amount calculated for 1 g oi inventory salt at time of sampling<br />

Noble-gas daughters Salt-seeking isotopes<br />

SI-89 Sr-91 Sr-92 Ba-140 0-137 Ce141 (3-143 Ce-144 Nd-147 Zr-95<br />

0.92 0.81 0.76<br />

0.90 0.63 0.69<br />

0.67 0.63 0.58<br />

0.67 0.71 0.90<br />

0.73 0.72 0.89<br />

0.64<br />

0.80 0.71<br />

0.74 0.72<br />

0.66 0.71<br />

0.80 0.82<br />

0.91<br />

0.77<br />

0.63 1.10<br />

0.69<br />

0.88<br />

0.76<br />

0.75<br />

9.60<br />

0.89<br />

0.87<br />

0.87 1.14<br />

0.90 45.00<br />

1.30<br />

0.59<br />

0.69<br />

0.79<br />

1.80<br />

0.89<br />

0.96<br />

1.10<br />

1.01<br />

0.99<br />

0.77<br />

0.59<br />

1.26<br />

0.63<br />

0.80<br />

0.84<br />

0.85<br />

0.92 0.79<br />

0.95 0.82<br />

0.78 1.20<br />

0.77 1.09<br />

0.66 1.04<br />

0.41 3.50<br />

0.85<br />

0.90<br />

0.87 0.64 1.20<br />

0.96 0.42 1 .erg<br />

1.03 2.60 1.10<br />

0.83 1 .06<br />

0.84<br />

0.76<br />

0.77<br />

I .20<br />

2.40<br />

Table 6.2. Nebte metals in salt samples from MSRE pump bowl during uranium235 opemtion<br />

Expressed as ratios to amount calculated for 1 g of inventory salt at time of sampling<br />

Date Kb-95<br />

5-23-66<br />

5-26-66<br />

6-27-66<br />

7-6-66<br />

4-13-66<br />

10-8-66<br />

12-28-66<br />

1-9-67<br />

2-13-67<br />

2-21-67<br />

3-9-67<br />

4-17-67<br />

4-28-64<br />

5-1-67<br />

5-5-67<br />

5-8-67<br />

6-20-67<br />

7-17-67<br />

11-7-67<br />

11-4-67<br />

12-5-67<br />

2-27-68<br />

3-5-68<br />

15.51<br />

2.66<br />

0.44<br />

0.95<br />

0.03324<br />

0.30<br />

0.32<br />

0.04432<br />

0.022 I6<br />

0.19<br />

0.24<br />

0.89<br />

0.38<br />

0.001 11<br />

0.00666<br />

0.00001<br />

0.00003<br />

0.02216<br />

kfo-99<br />

~ I - - g<br />

0.54<br />

2.77<br />

0.58<br />

0.80<br />

0.19<br />

0.02216<br />

0.28<br />

1.88<br />

1.44<br />

1.03<br />

0.92<br />

0.44<br />

0.49<br />

0.21<br />

0.03324<br />

0.75<br />

0.47<br />

o .oi 440<br />

0.00554<br />

0.00222<br />

0.00443<br />

Ru-103<br />

._l__li<br />

0.01330<br />

0.42<br />

0.09086<br />

Q.21<br />

0.20<br />

0.03767<br />

0.02659<br />

0.01551<br />

0.12<br />

0.09972<br />

0.06648<br />

0.21<br />

0.05540<br />

1.22<br />

0.02216<br />

0.13<br />

0.09972<br />

0.12<br />

0.06648<br />

0.00222<br />

0,00111<br />

0.00044<br />

0.00033<br />

Ru-105 Ru-106<br />

2.50<br />

9.31<br />

1.33<br />

3.74<br />

1.44 0.29<br />

0.06205<br />

0.03435<br />

0.01994<br />

0.09972<br />

0.09942<br />

0.07756<br />

0.16<br />

0.03324<br />

0.08864<br />

0.02216<br />

0.12<br />

0.13<br />

0.08864<br />

0.07756<br />

0.00665<br />

0 .00 22 2<br />

0.00048<br />

0.003 3 2<br />

Ag-111 Te-l29m<br />

0.31<br />

0.08089<br />

0.12<br />

0.17<br />

0.09972<br />

0.12 0.17<br />

0.09972 0.14<br />

0.0’3324 0.17<br />

0.68<br />

0.14<br />

0.11<br />

0.04432<br />

0.01219<br />

Te-l 32<br />

0.57<br />

0.5 1<br />

0.44<br />

0.40<br />

0.33<br />

0.14<br />

0.17<br />

0.47<br />

0.31<br />

0.42<br />

0.31<br />

0.14<br />

0.14<br />

0.088 64<br />

(1.12<br />

0.12<br />

0.06648<br />

0.00665<br />

0.01219<br />

0.00222<br />

0.01219<br />

1.12<br />

0.95<br />

0.95<br />

0.71<br />

1.09<br />

0.98<br />

1.09<br />

0.23<br />

0.86<br />

0.96<br />

0.94<br />

1.10<br />

1 .04<br />

0.97<br />

I .02<br />

1.04 1.04<br />

0.55 1.06<br />

1.12<br />

0.94<br />

1-131 1-133 1-135<br />

0.72 0.91 0.55<br />

0.92 0.69 0.83<br />

0.81 0.69 0.66<br />

0.79 0.91<br />

0.75 0.73 0.64<br />

1.10<br />

0.91<br />

0.96<br />

0.70<br />

0.94<br />

1 .33<br />

1.09<br />

0.98<br />

0.96<br />

0.82<br />

0.16<br />

0.99<br />

8.20<br />

0.74<br />

0.50<br />

0.66


and transfer tube regions, and indicated that salt<br />

samples taken from below the surface were desirable.<br />

4.2 Freeze-Value Samples<br />

Beginning in run IO, gas samples (q.v.1 had been taken<br />

using a “freeze-value” capsule (Fig. 6.4).<br />

Tu prepare a freeze-valve capsule, it was heated<br />

sufficiently to melt the salt seal, then cooled under<br />

vacuum. It was thus possible to lower the capsule<br />

nozzle below the surface of the salt in the pump bowl<br />

before the seal melted; the vacuum then sucked in the<br />

sample.<br />

After the freeze-valve capsule was transferred to the<br />

High Radiation Level Analytical Laboratory, inspected,<br />

and weighed after removing the cable, the entry nozzle<br />

was sealed with chemically durable wax. The capsule<br />

exterior was then leached repeatedly with “verbocit”<br />

VOLUME<br />

20cc-<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-DWG 61-4784A<br />

STAINLESS STEEL<br />

CABLE<br />

s -3/4-in. OB NICKEL<br />

NICKEL CAPILLARY<br />

/--<br />

Fig. 6.4. Freeze valve capsule.<br />

22<br />

(Versene, boric acid: and citric acid) and with<br />

HNOB-HF solution until the activity of the leach<br />

solution was acceptably low. The capsule was cut apart<br />

in three places . in the lower sealing cavity, just above<br />

the sealing partition, and near the top of the capsule.<br />

Salt was extracted, and the salt and salt-encrusted<br />

capsule parts were weighed. The metal parts were<br />

thoroughIy leached or dissolved, as were aliquuts of the<br />

salt.<br />

Four samples (designated Fv were taken late in run<br />

14 using this technique. Results shown near the bottom<br />

of Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show that the values for<br />

salt-seeking isotopes and daughters of noble-gas isotopes<br />

were little changed and were near inventory, but values<br />

for noble-metal nuclides were far below inventory. This<br />

supports the view that the liquid salt held little of the<br />

noble metals and that the noble-meld activity of earlier<br />

ladle samples came from the pump bowl gas (or<br />

gas-liquid interface) or from the transfer tube.<br />

After run 14 was terminated the 235L fuel was<br />

removed by fluorination, and thc carrier salt was<br />

reduced with hydrogen and with metallic zirconium,<br />

after which 233U fuel was added, and the system was<br />

brought to criticality and then to power in the early<br />

autumn of 1968.<br />

Radiochemical analyses were obtained on ladle sam-<br />

ples taken during treatment in the fuel storage tank<br />

(designated FST) during chemical processing, and from<br />

the fuel pump bowl after the salt was returned to the<br />

fuel circulation system (designated FPj from time to<br />

time during runs 15, 17, 1s: and 19, as shown in Table<br />

6.3. Chemical analyses on these samples were reported<br />

by T h~ma.~<br />

The “Xb activity of the solution was slightly more<br />

than accounted for in samples FPlS-GL, as the ~ir-<br />

conium reduction process had been completed only a<br />

short time before; the niobium inventory was set at<br />

zero at that time. The 951\;b which then grew into the<br />

salt from decay of 35Zr appeared in these samples to<br />

show some response to beryllium reduction of the salt:<br />

though this effect is seen better with freeze-valve<br />

samples and so will nut be discussed here. The various<br />

additions of beryllium to the fuel salt have been given<br />

by Thoma.3<br />

Data for all freeze-valve salt samples taken during<br />

tj operation are summarized as ratios to inventory<br />

salt in Tables 6.4 and 6.5, and Table 6.8 at the end of<br />

the chapter, where various operating conditions are<br />

given, along with the sample activity and ratio to<br />

inventory salt. Analyses for salt constituents as well as<br />

fission products are S ~QWII there. On the inventory-ratio<br />

basis, comparisons can be made between any constituents<br />

and/or fission products.


Table 6.3. Data on fuel (including car&E) salt samples from MSME pump bowl during uranium-233 operation<br />

Ladle capsules<br />

Values shown are the ratio of observed activity to inventory activity. both in disintegrations per minute per gram<br />

Inventory basis, 1.4 MW = full power<br />

SaIIlplt: Type. S-89 Sr-9 1 Y-91 Ba-140 0-137 ce-141 ce-143 0-144 ~I-147 Zr-95 Nb-95 MO-99 Mu-l 03 Ru-105 Ku-1Qh Te-129m Te-132 1-I 31<br />

FST-25,<br />

Aug. 14<br />

FST-27,<br />

Aug. 21<br />

FST-30,<br />

Sept. 4<br />

FP15-6L,<br />

Sept. 14<br />

FPlS-9L,<br />

Sept. 17<br />

FPIS-1QL,<br />

Sept. 19<br />

FP15-1 SL,<br />

Oct. 4<br />

FP1526L,<br />

Oct. IQ<br />

FP17-IL,<br />

Jan. 12<br />

FPl74L,<br />

Jan. 21<br />

FP17-9L,<br />

Jan. 24<br />

FPI 7-l 2&,<br />

Feb. 6<br />

FPll7-l%L,<br />

Feb. 12<br />

FP17-191.,<br />

Feb. 19<br />

FP17-2QL,<br />

Feb. 20<br />

FP17-3QL.<br />

Apr. 1<br />

IS-lL,<br />

Apr. 14<br />

I%-5L,<br />

Apr. 23<br />

18-1QL,<br />

Apr. 29<br />

1s17L,<br />

Aug. 27<br />

Fuel, &we Fz<br />

Carrier, end F2<br />

Carrier, end Hz<br />

Fuel<br />

Fuel<br />

Fuel<br />

Fuel<br />

Fuel<br />

Fuel, pre power<br />

Fuel, approach<br />

power<br />

FUd<br />

Q.85 1.22 I.22 1 .Q2<br />

0.83 I.21 0.99<br />

0.94 1.2x 1.11<br />

0.92 1.32 1.11<br />

a.93 1 .Q7 1.26<br />

0.93 1.2% 1.04<br />

0.75 1 .Q4 0.80<br />

0.89 1.40 1.04<br />

(3.4) 0.84 1.32 1.05<br />

0.85 0.37 0.82 1 .Q9<br />

0.86 1.1.5<br />

Fuel 1.22<br />

Fuel<br />

Fuel<br />

Fuel<br />

Fuel<br />

Fuel<br />

Fuel<br />

““‘Nb removed by fluorination.<br />

bParentheses indicate approximate value.<br />

1.01 I.36 1.17 Cl.49 0.94 1.24 1.46 2.1x<br />

1.12<br />

1.17<br />

1.01<br />

1 .Q6<br />

1 .Q6<br />

1.25<br />

1.44<br />

0.66<br />

0.71<br />

0.50<br />

(Q.26)*,@<br />

1.30<br />

1 .Q2<br />

0.71<br />

0.76<br />

0.63<br />

0.80<br />

0.81<br />

0.26<br />

0.22<br />

(0.11)<br />

0.11<br />

0.46<br />

0.53<br />

0.44<br />

0.15<br />

1.44<br />

0.44 0.76 1.72<br />

a.43 0.10<br />

a.43 0.15 0.04<br />

0.25<br />

0.28<br />

0.14 1.07<br />

0.45 0.06 1.45 10.1 5.7


Tables 6.4 and 6.5 present only the ratio of the<br />

activity of various fission products to the inventory<br />

value for the various samples.<br />

Two kinds of freeze-valve capsules were used. During<br />

runs 15, 16, and 17 (except 17-32) the salt-sealed<br />

capsule described above was used. In general, the results<br />

obtained with this type of capsule are believed to<br />

represent the sample fairly~ However, as discussed<br />

above, the values for a given salt sample represent the<br />

combination of activities of the capsule interior surface<br />

24<br />

with those determined for the contained sdt. To L.&i<br />

prevent interference from activities accumulated on the<br />

capsule exterior, as many as several dozen HN03-HF<br />

leaching were required ; occasionally the capsule was<br />

penetrated. Also, the salt seal appeared to leak slightly;<br />

less vacuum inside resulted in less sample.<br />

6.3 Double Wall C apk<br />

When a double-walled capsule was developed for gas<br />

samples (q.v.) it was adopted dss for salt samples. The<br />

Table 6.4. Noble-gas daughters and salt-seeking isotopes in salt samples from MSWE pump bowl during uranium-233 operation<br />

Sample Date<br />

15-28<br />

15-32<br />

15-42<br />

15-5 1<br />

15-57<br />

15-69<br />

16-4<br />

17-2<br />

17-1<br />

17-1 0<br />

17-22<br />

17-29<br />

17-31<br />

17-32<br />

18-2<br />

18-4<br />

18-6<br />

18-12<br />

18-19<br />

18-44<br />

18-45<br />

18-46<br />

19-lb<br />

19-6b<br />

19-9<br />

19-24<br />

19-36<br />

19-42<br />

19-44<br />

19-47<br />

19-55<br />

19-57<br />

19-58<br />

19-59<br />

19-76<br />

20-1<br />

20-19<br />

10-1 2-68<br />

10-15-68<br />

10-29-68<br />

11-6-68<br />

11 -1 1-68<br />

11-25-68<br />

12-1 6-68<br />

1-14-69<br />

1-2 3-69<br />

1-28-69<br />

2-28-69<br />

3-26-69<br />

4-1-69<br />

4-3-69<br />

4-14-69<br />

4-1 8-69<br />

4-23-69<br />

5-2-69<br />

5-9-69<br />

5-29-69<br />

6-1 -69<br />

6-1-69<br />

8-1 1-69<br />

8-15-69<br />

8-18-69<br />

9-10-69<br />

9-29-69<br />

10-3-69<br />

10-6-69<br />

10-7-69<br />

10-14-69<br />

10-17-69<br />

10-17-69<br />

10-19-69<br />

10-30-69<br />

11-26-69<br />

12-9-69<br />

"Approximate value.<br />

hFlush salt.<br />

Expressed as ratio to amount calculated for 1 g of inventory salt at time of sampling<br />

Noble-gas daughters Salt-seeking Isotope$<br />

__ -.<br />

SI-89<br />

-<br />

SI-90 Y-91 Ba-140 Cs-137 (3-141 (3-144 Nd-147 Zr-95<br />

0.20<br />

0.94<br />

0.84<br />

0.79<br />

0.87<br />

1.01<br />

0.69<br />

0.48<br />

0.60<br />

0.55<br />

0.77<br />

0.63<br />

0.46<br />

0.77<br />

0.78<br />

0.60<br />

0.97<br />

0.62<br />

0.76<br />

0.75<br />

0.72<br />

0.00863<br />

0.01 677<br />

0.70<br />

0.89<br />

0.82<br />

0.86<br />

0.48<br />

0.89<br />

0.74<br />

0.75<br />

0.73<br />

0.65<br />

0.73<br />

0.63<br />

0.53<br />

0.61<br />

0.70<br />

0.89 1.24<br />

0.71 0.66<br />

0.11 Q.96<br />

0.76 1.22<br />

1.31<br />

1.22<br />

2.53 0.64<br />

0.94<br />

1.90<br />

1.04<br />

1.34<br />

1.38<br />

1.11<br />

1.12<br />

1.02<br />

0.00389<br />

0.01612<br />

0.39<br />

I .37<br />

I .00<br />

1.12<br />

1.21<br />

1.23<br />

1 .00<br />

1.13<br />

1.17<br />

2.23<br />

0.76<br />

I .29<br />

1.02<br />

1.17<br />

(1.42)"<br />

0.80<br />

0.69<br />

0.38<br />

1.08<br />

1.05<br />

1 .O1<br />

0.92<br />

1.10<br />

0.81<br />

I .I4<br />

1.01<br />

1.06<br />

1.04<br />

0.00464<br />

0.02 I57<br />

0.85<br />

(!.I9<br />

0.94<br />

0.98<br />

0.99<br />

0.98<br />

1.12<br />

1.10<br />

1.03<br />

1.10<br />

I .04<br />

1.07<br />

0.91<br />

1.36<br />

0.84<br />

0.82<br />

0.81<br />

0.93<br />

0.84<br />

0.69<br />

0.44<br />

0.68<br />

0.83<br />

0.0977 6<br />

0.91<br />

0.81<br />

0.77<br />

0.84<br />

0.88<br />

0.81<br />

0.72<br />

0.92<br />

0.79<br />

0.91<br />

0.84<br />

0.02514<br />

0.099Ki<br />

0.52<br />

0.85<br />

1.10<br />

1.36<br />

0.08 140<br />

0.80<br />

0.69<br />

0.85<br />

0.86<br />

0.80<br />

0.98<br />

0.75<br />

0.79<br />

0.5 3<br />

0.94<br />

0.80<br />

8.85<br />

0.77<br />

0.80<br />

0.91<br />

0.78<br />

0.71<br />

0.81<br />

0.81<br />

0.78<br />

0.81<br />

0.75<br />

0.00176<br />

0.15<br />

0.60<br />

0.75<br />

0.76<br />

0.84<br />

0.82<br />

0.86<br />

0.90<br />

0.87<br />

0.81<br />

0.79<br />

0.85<br />

0.67<br />

0.69<br />

0.29<br />

1.08<br />

1.16<br />

1.13<br />

I .25<br />

I .06<br />

1.10<br />

1.10<br />

0.70<br />

0.62<br />

1 .07<br />

1.28<br />

1.11<br />

1.16<br />

1.22<br />

1.21<br />

1.03<br />

1.23<br />

1.10<br />

0.94<br />

1 si2<br />

1.23<br />

0.00984<br />

0.02149<br />

0.91<br />

1 .OO<br />

1.07<br />

1.12<br />

1.09<br />

1.15<br />

1 .22<br />

1.16<br />

1.17<br />

1.06<br />

1.16<br />

1.13<br />

1 .Oh<br />

0.66<br />

0.98<br />

0.99<br />

1.22<br />

1 .08<br />

1.16<br />

1.49<br />

1.15<br />

0.65<br />

0.04 I 48<br />

1.20<br />

1 .O%<br />

0.014 39<br />

0.18<br />

0.12<br />

0.94<br />

1.21<br />

1.18<br />

1.20<br />

1.34<br />

I .22<br />

1.36<br />

1.16<br />

1.19<br />

0.28<br />

0.91<br />

0.88<br />

1.14<br />

0.98<br />

0.9 3<br />

1.38<br />

0.79<br />

0.72<br />

0.89<br />

0.89<br />

0.98<br />

0.92<br />

0.96<br />

0.97<br />

0.99<br />

0.99<br />

0.94<br />

I .01<br />

0.55<br />

0.95<br />

0.90<br />

0'00286<br />

0.0101s<br />

0.42<br />

0.86<br />

0.86<br />

0.93<br />

1.01<br />

0.99<br />

0.95<br />

0.9 3<br />

0.92<br />

0.90<br />

0.74<br />

0.92<br />

0.85


.-<br />

interior copper capsule was removed without contact<br />

with contaminated hot-cell objects and was entirely<br />

dissolved. The outer capsule could also be dissolved to<br />

determine the relative amounts of activity deposited on<br />

such a “dipped specimen.” Data on capsule exteriors<br />

will be given in a separate section. Salt samples<br />

beginning with sample 14-32 were obtained using the<br />

25<br />

double-walled capsule. Operating conditions associated<br />

with the respective san~ples are summarized in Table<br />

6.6.<br />

We should note that very little power had been<br />

produced from 233W prior to sample 15-63; much of<br />

the activity was carried over from 235U operations.<br />

Sample 17-2 was taken during the first approach to<br />

Table 6.5. Noble metals in salt samples from MSRE pump bowl during uranium-233 operation<br />

Expressed as ratio to amount calculated fur 1 g of inventory salt at time of sampling<br />

Sample Date Nb-95 hlo-99 Ru-103 Ru-106 Ag-1 I 1 Sb-125 Te-129 m Te-132 1-1 3 I<br />

15-28<br />

15-32<br />

15-42<br />

15-51<br />

15-57<br />

15-69<br />

16-4<br />

17-2<br />

17-7<br />

17-1 0<br />

17-22<br />

17-29<br />

17-31<br />

17-32<br />

18-2<br />

18-4<br />

18-6<br />

18-1 2<br />

18-19<br />

18-44<br />

1845<br />

18-46<br />

19-lC<br />

19-6‘<br />

19-9<br />

19-24<br />

19-36<br />

1942<br />

19-44<br />

19-47<br />

19-55<br />

19-57<br />

19-5 8<br />

14-59<br />

19-76<br />

20-1<br />

20-19<br />

10-12-68<br />

10-1 5-68<br />

10-29-68<br />

11-6-68<br />

11-1 1-68<br />

11-25-68<br />

12-16-68<br />

1-1 4-69<br />

1-23-69<br />

1-28-69<br />

2-28-69<br />

3-26-69<br />

4-1-69<br />

4-3-69<br />

4-14-69<br />

4-1 8-69<br />

4-23-69<br />

5-2-69<br />

5-9-69<br />

5-29-69<br />

6-1-69<br />

6-1-69<br />

8-1 1-69<br />

8-1 5-69<br />

8-1 8-69<br />

9-10-69<br />

9-29-69<br />

10-3-69<br />

10-6-69<br />

10-7-69<br />

10-1 4-69<br />

10-1 7-69<br />

10-17-69<br />

10-17-69<br />

10-30-69<br />

11-24-69<br />

12-5-69<br />

0.74<br />

1.16<br />

0.42<br />

0.85<br />

1 .Q6<br />

0.02000<br />

0.54<br />

0.52<br />

0.29<br />

-0.02312’<br />

-0.05000<br />

0.51<br />

0.32<br />

0.31<br />

0.46<br />

0.22<br />

1.56<br />

0.04847<br />

0.01641<br />

-0.03579<br />

0.44<br />

0.02242<br />

(0.11)<br />

(-0.00108)<br />

0.34<br />

0.33<br />

-0.08623<br />

-0.06114<br />

- 0.05268<br />

0.02630<br />

5.05050<br />

-0.03366<br />

-0.01 449<br />

0.02995<br />

0.19<br />

0.05389<br />

0.09635<br />

(2.48P<br />

0.12<br />

0.53<br />

0.00971<br />

0.00445<br />

0.01360<br />

0.00344<br />

0.01496<br />

0.00839<br />

0.85<br />

0.00812<br />

0.00773<br />

0.03459<br />

1.36<br />

0.12<br />

0.22<br />

0.01916<br />

0.43<br />

0.41<br />

0.83<br />

0.63<br />

0.75<br />

0.01885<br />

0.19<br />

0.01412<br />

3.34<br />

0.78<br />

0.02536<br />

0.00006<br />

0.00096<br />

0.00037<br />

0.00433<br />

0.01241<br />

0.04953<br />

0.03352<br />

0.01 134<br />

0.00076<br />

0.02199<br />

0.00 I77<br />

0.0221 6<br />

0.52<br />

0.07401<br />

0.00160<br />

0.00202<br />

0 .00 I5 3<br />

0.00862<br />

(0.07066)<br />

(0.00308)<br />

0.00071<br />

0.21<br />

0.0021 9<br />

0.1 3<br />

0.04484<br />

0.15<br />

0.18<br />

0.28<br />

0.00367<br />

0.03270<br />

0.00195<br />

0.29<br />

0.11<br />

0.03436<br />

0.000 15<br />

0.00084<br />

0.00026<br />

0.00329<br />

0.00442<br />

0.00304<br />

0.00165<br />

0.00055<br />

0.000 2 7<br />

0.23<br />

0.02958<br />

0.00327<br />

(0.02304)<br />

(0.00192)<br />

0.23<br />

0.08871<br />

0.51 308<br />

0.05326<br />

0.05759<br />

0.1 1<br />

0.00207<br />

0.01478<br />

0.14<br />

0.05074<br />

(2.57)<br />

0.09095<br />

0.00425<br />

0.1 3<br />

0.08057<br />

0.03367<br />

1.23<br />

0.06622<br />

0.05940<br />

5.13<br />

0.03976<br />

8.1 2<br />

0.20<br />

0.60<br />

0.10<br />

0.04055<br />

Q.48<br />

0.23<br />

0.14<br />

0.00007<br />

0.00391<br />

o.ooaii<br />

0.00195<br />

0.00004<br />

0.00687<br />

0.06829<br />

0.26<br />

0.21<br />

0.01981<br />

0.00233<br />

0.01014<br />

0 .o 1 9 2 1<br />

1.83<br />

0.00383<br />

0.05106<br />

0.02532<br />

(0.10)<br />

(0.01 185)<br />

0.74<br />

0.00335<br />

0.18<br />

0.19<br />

0.13<br />

0.30<br />

0.02334<br />

0.22<br />

0.28<br />

0.09176<br />

(3.67)<br />

0.31<br />

0.03021<br />

0.02040<br />

0.01 169<br />

0.03794<br />

0.00348<br />

0.006 7 L!<br />

0.00398<br />

I .80<br />

0.00230<br />

0.0081 3<br />

0.14<br />

0.04 30 2<br />

0.24<br />

o .a061 4<br />

0.09806<br />

0.01808<br />

0.06358<br />

0.04204<br />

0.07974<br />

0.0015 1<br />

0.00680<br />

8.00031<br />

0.55<br />

0.21<br />

1.13<br />

(1.67)<br />

0.40<br />

0.37<br />

0.46<br />

0.28<br />

0.30<br />

0.40<br />

0.10<br />

0.35<br />

0.26<br />

0.53<br />

0.74<br />

0.34<br />

0.44<br />

0.08227<br />

(0.28)<br />

“Parentheses indicate approximate value.<br />

%egatlve nunntms result when 95Nb, which grows in from 95Zr present between sampling and analysis time, exceeds that found<br />

by analysis.<br />

‘Flush salt.<br />

0.60<br />

0.58<br />

0.65<br />

0.89<br />

0.11<br />

0.44<br />

0.54<br />

0.64<br />

0.15<br />

0.40<br />

0.68<br />

0.41<br />

i


Sample<br />

NO.<br />

15-28<br />

15-32<br />

15-42<br />

15-5 z<br />

15-57<br />

15-69<br />

16-4<br />

17-2<br />

17-7<br />

17-10<br />

17-22<br />

17-29<br />

17-3 1<br />

17-32<br />

18-2<br />

18-4<br />

18-6<br />

18-12<br />

18-19<br />

18-44<br />

18-45<br />

18-46<br />

19-la<br />

19-6a<br />

19-9<br />

19-24<br />

19-36<br />

19-42<br />

19-44<br />

19-47<br />

19-55<br />

19-57<br />

19-58<br />

19-59<br />

19-76<br />

20-1<br />

20-1 9<br />

‘Flush salt<br />

Equivalent<br />

Date The full-power<br />

hours<br />

10-12-68 1726<br />

10-15-68 2047<br />

10-29-68 1123<br />

11-6-68 1531<br />

11-1 1-68 2145<br />

11-25-68 1700<br />

12-16-68 0555<br />

1-14-69 1025<br />

1-23-69 1320<br />

1-28-69 0603<br />

2-28-69 2259<br />

3-26-69 1506<br />

4-1-69 1145<br />

4-3-69 0552<br />

4-14-69 1150<br />

4-18-69 2119<br />

4-23-69 1015<br />

5-2-69 1305<br />

5-9-69 1925<br />

5-29-69 0311<br />

6-1-69 0921<br />

6-1-69 1412<br />

8-1 1-69 0845<br />

8-15-69 0413<br />

8-18-69 0604<br />

9-10-69 1049<br />

9-29-69 1108<br />

10-3-69 1105<br />

10-6-69 0635<br />

10-7-69 1033<br />

10-14-69 1047<br />

10-17-69 0620<br />

10-17-69 094 1<br />

10-17-69 1240<br />

10-30-69 1159<br />

11 -26-69 1704<br />

12-5-69 0557<br />

Table 6.6. Operating conditions for salt samples taken from MSRE pump bowl during uranium-233 operation<br />

0.01<br />

0.01<br />

0.01<br />

0.01<br />

0.01.<br />

0.01<br />

1.56<br />

1.69<br />

94.00<br />

155.50<br />

719.63<br />

1144.75<br />

1271.00<br />

1307.00<br />

1527.75<br />

1601.25<br />

1713.12<br />

1939.00<br />

2106.00<br />

2473.00<br />

2538.63<br />

2538.63<br />

2538.63<br />

2538.63<br />

2538.63<br />

2781.87<br />

2978.50<br />

3048.87<br />

3118.62<br />

3148.75<br />

3330.25<br />

3395.38<br />

3397.13<br />

3397.13<br />

3705.63<br />

3789.38<br />

3990.87<br />

Overflow<br />

.___<br />

Percent of Hours at<br />

Purge gas flow<br />

Pump Voids Pump bowl Previous<br />

full percent of level<br />

rpm (72)<br />

Lb/hr return<br />

power power<br />

- Std Gas Psig<br />

(%) liters/rnm<br />

Day Time<br />

.~<br />

0.00<br />

0.01<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

5.63<br />

57.50<br />

58.75<br />

87.50<br />

86.25<br />

90.00<br />

90.00<br />

100 .00<br />

100.00<br />

100.00<br />

100.00<br />

100.00<br />

86.25<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.13<br />

0.13<br />

68.75<br />

8’7.50<br />

100 .00<br />

100.00<br />

100.00<br />

100.00<br />

0.13<br />

0.13<br />

100.00<br />

100.00<br />

100.00<br />

0.5<br />

0.1<br />

9.4<br />

24.3<br />

0.5<br />

21.4<br />

62.8<br />

1.5<br />

15.1<br />

39.0<br />

31.4<br />

0.1<br />

140.8<br />

182.9<br />

41.8<br />

49.8<br />

158.7<br />

376.5<br />

93.8<br />

28.7<br />

0.4<br />

5.2<br />

0.0<br />

0.0<br />

1.1<br />

19.6<br />

66.1<br />

49.0<br />

63.3<br />

91.3<br />

259.5<br />

41.6<br />

1 .0<br />

4.0<br />

140.6<br />

1 .7<br />

36.7<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

942<br />

1050<br />

1050<br />

1050<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

1180<br />

11 80<br />

990<br />

990<br />

990<br />

1189<br />

1170<br />

1189<br />

1165<br />

608<br />

1176<br />

1188<br />

1175<br />

1186<br />

1186<br />

1188<br />

1189<br />

1176<br />

1190<br />

1200<br />

0.00<br />

0.60<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.60<br />

0.60<br />

0.60<br />

0.60<br />

0.60<br />

0.60<br />

0.00<br />

0.05<br />

0.05<br />

0.05<br />

0.60<br />

0.60<br />

0.60<br />

0.60<br />

0.60<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.00<br />

0.60<br />

0.70<br />

0.00<br />

0.53<br />

0.5 3<br />

0.53<br />

0.53<br />

0.53<br />

0.53<br />

0.53<br />

0.53<br />

0.53<br />

0.53<br />

63<br />

66<br />

66<br />

66<br />

63<br />

56<br />

62<br />

59<br />

57<br />

57<br />

65<br />

58<br />

62<br />

6 0<br />

61<br />

63<br />

63<br />

59<br />

59<br />

53<br />

50<br />

56<br />

72<br />

62<br />

65<br />

62<br />

58<br />

68<br />

64<br />

61<br />

63<br />

63<br />

67<br />

65<br />

66<br />

64<br />

63<br />

1.4<br />

2.9<br />

3.7<br />

1 .o<br />

0.8<br />

0.8<br />

0.8<br />

3.8<br />

1.8<br />

1.6<br />

0.7<br />

1.3<br />

3.0<br />

4.5<br />

7.4<br />

4.9<br />

4.7<br />

3.0<br />

0.9<br />

0.0<br />

0.0<br />

0.0<br />

0.0<br />

0.7<br />

2.4<br />

4.7<br />

0.9<br />

6.3<br />

7.4<br />

1.8<br />

2.6<br />

3.7<br />

9.0<br />

3.9<br />

8.6<br />

6.8<br />

5.6<br />

10-12<br />

10-15<br />

10-28<br />

114<br />

11-11<br />

11-25<br />

12-15<br />

1-14<br />

1-23<br />

1-27<br />

2-27<br />

3-25<br />

4-1<br />

4-2<br />

4-14<br />

4-18<br />

4-23<br />

5 -2<br />

5-9<br />

5-28<br />

5-3 1<br />

5-3 I<br />

00<br />

00<br />

8-18<br />

9-10<br />

9-27<br />

10-3<br />

10-3<br />

10-7<br />

10-14<br />

10-17<br />

10-17<br />

10-17<br />

10-30<br />

11-26<br />

12-5<br />

0711<br />

1830<br />

1730<br />

1630<br />

1208<br />

04 25<br />

1758<br />

0310<br />

07 36<br />

2315<br />

1630<br />

1132<br />

1015<br />

1807<br />

0853<br />

1901<br />

0733<br />

0500<br />

1303<br />

1833<br />

2223<br />

2223<br />

0 0<br />

0 0<br />

0219<br />

0501<br />

0316<br />

1036<br />

0305<br />

0228<br />

0353<br />

0105<br />

0757<br />

0757<br />

09 16<br />

1320<br />

0248<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3 30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

2.30<br />

2.00<br />

2.00<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

2.90<br />

3.35<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.35<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

3.30<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

IIe<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

IIe<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

Ar<br />

AI<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

Ar<br />

€He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

1% e<br />

He<br />

ne<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

He<br />

5.2<br />

5.5<br />

4.9<br />

5.0<br />

5.5<br />

5.0<br />

4.6<br />

3.8<br />

4.2<br />

5 .0<br />

5.4<br />

4.2<br />

8.9<br />

3.2<br />

4.6<br />

5.2<br />

5.5<br />

5.2<br />

4.8<br />

13.0<br />

12.8<br />

13.6<br />

2.4<br />

5.3<br />

5.3<br />

5.0<br />

6.3<br />

5 .0<br />

5.5<br />

5.8<br />

5.2<br />

5.2<br />

5.6<br />

5.6<br />

5.2<br />

5.5<br />

5.2<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on cm<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge on<br />

Purge off<br />

Purge off<br />

Purge off<br />

Purge off<br />

Purge off<br />

Purge off<br />

Purge off<br />

Purgc off<br />

Purge off<br />

Purge off<br />

Purge off<br />

Purge off<br />

h)


sustained high power; the higher values for the shortestlived<br />

nuclides reflect some uncertainties in inventory<br />

because heat-balance calibrations of the current power<br />

level had not been accuniplished at the time - it<br />

appeared more desirable to accept the inventory aberration,<br />

significant only for this sample, than to guess at<br />

correction.<br />

Sample 18-46 was taken 5'4 hr after a scheduled<br />

reactor shutdown. Samples 19-1 and 19-6 are samples<br />

of flush salt circulated prior to returning fuel after the<br />

shu tdown ~<br />

6.4 Fission Product Element Grouping<br />

It is useful in examining the data from salt samples to<br />

establish two broad categories: the salt-seeking elements<br />

and the noble-metal elements. The fluorides of thc<br />

salt-seeking elements (Wb, Sr, Y, Zr, Cs, Ba, La, Ce, and<br />

rare earthsj are stable and soluble in fuel salt. Some of<br />

these elements (Wb, Sr, Y, Cs, Ba) have noble-gas<br />

precursors with half-lives long enough for some of the<br />

noble gas to leave the salt before decay.<br />

Noble-metal fission product elements (Nb, Mo, Tc,<br />

Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag [Cd: In, Sn?], Sb, Te, and I) do not<br />

form fluorides which are stable in salt at the redox<br />

potential of the fuel salt. Niobium is borderline and will<br />

be discussed later. Iodine can form iodides and remain<br />

in the salt; it is included with the noble nietals because<br />

most iodine nuclides have a tellurium precursor - and<br />

also to avoid creating a special category just for iodine.<br />

The Nb-Mo-Tc-Ru-Rh-Pd-Ag elements for a subgroup,<br />

and the Sb-Te-I elements another.<br />

Quite generally in the salt samples the salt-seeking<br />

elements are found with values of the ratio to inventory<br />

activity not far from unity. Values for some nuclides<br />

could be affected by loss of noble-gas precursors. These<br />

include:<br />

RecurmoP NMdide affected<br />

3.18-min ""Kr S'Sr<br />

33-sec "Kr 90%<br />

9.8-sec 9' Kr<br />

3.9-min 'j7xe<br />

9ISr, 9'Y<br />

13 7cs<br />

1B-sec * 40~e 140Ba<br />

The "Sr and IS7Cs in particular might be expected<br />

to be stripped to some extent into the pump bowl gas,<br />

as discussed below for gas samples. In Table 6.4, ratio<br />

values for 'lY and '"Ba are close to unity and<br />

actually slightly above.<br />

Values for<br />

Ce run slightly below unity, and those<br />

for 144Ce (and 147Nd) somewhat above. The 95Zr<br />

values average near but a few percent below unity.<br />

Thus the group of salt-seeking elements offers no<br />

surprises, and it appears acceptable to regard them as<br />

27<br />

remaining in the salt except as their noble-gas pre-<br />

cursors may escape.<br />

The general consistency of the ratio values for this<br />

group provides a strong argument for the adequacy of<br />

the various channels of information which come tu-<br />

gether in these numbers: sampling techniques, radio-<br />

chemical procedures, operating histories, fission prod-<br />

uct yield and decay data, and inventory calculations.<br />

6.5 Noble-Metal Behavior<br />

The consideration of noble-metal behavior is ap-<br />

proached from a different point of view than for the<br />

salt-seeking group. Thermodynamic arguments indicate<br />

that the fluorides of the noble metals generally are not<br />

stable in salt at the redox potential of MSWE opera-<br />

tions. Niobium is borderline, and iodine can form<br />

iodides, which could remain in solution. So the ques-<br />

tiopls are: Where do the noblemetal nuclides go, how<br />

long do they remain in salt after their formation before<br />

leaving, and if our salt samples have concentrations<br />

evidently exceeding such a steady state, how do we<br />

explain it? The ratio of concentration to inventory is<br />

still a good measure of relative behavior as long as OUT<br />

focus is an events in the salt.<br />

If the fluorides of noble-metal fission product ele-<br />

ments are not stable, the insolubility of reduced<br />

(metallic or carbide) species makes any extra material<br />

found in solution have to be some sort of solid<br />

substance, presumably finely divided. Niobium and<br />

iodine - later tellurium - will be discussed separately,<br />

as these arguments do not apply at one point or<br />

another.<br />

If we examine the data in Table 6.5 for Mo, Ru, Ag,<br />

Sb, and Te isotopes during runs 15 to 20, it is evident<br />

that a low fraction of inventory was in the salt. We<br />

simply need to decide whether what we see is dissolved<br />

steady-state material or entrained colloidal particulate<br />

material.<br />

If the dissolved steady-state concentration of a<br />

soluble material is low, relative to inventory, loss<br />

processes appreciably more rapid than decay must exist.<br />

If the average power during the shorter period required<br />

to establish the steady state is fi ~ then at steady state it<br />

may be shown that<br />

It follows that the ratio of observed to inventory<br />

activity will be:<br />

all periods


The amounts in solution should be proportional to the<br />

inverse of half-life, to the current power (vs fulI), and<br />

to the relative degree of full-power saturation. The<br />

amount does not depend on the other atoms of the<br />

species as long as the loss term is first order.<br />

It follows that samples taken at low power after<br />

operation at appreciable power should drop sharply in<br />

value compared with the prior samples. These include<br />

18-45, 18-46, 19-24, 19-58, and 19-59. Of these<br />

samples, only 19-58 appears evidently low across the<br />

board; the criterion is not generally met.<br />

The expression also indicates that after a long<br />

shutdown, the rise in inventory occurring (for a half-life<br />

or so), with fairly steady loss rate? should result in an<br />

appreciable decrease in the ratio. The beginnings of runs<br />

1'7 and I9 are the only such periods available. Here the<br />

data are too scattered to be conclusive; some of the<br />

data on '*"Te and 132Te appear to fir: samples 17-7<br />

and 19-24, respectively, are somewhat higher than<br />

many subsequent samples.<br />

Brigs4 has indicated that the loss coefficients should<br />

be<br />

for mass transfer to graphite, metai. and bubble surface,<br />

respectively, if sticking factors were unity and K the<br />

ratio of the mass transfer coefficient to that of xenon.<br />

For metal atoms, K - 1; neglecting bubbles, I, - 7<br />

hr-' .<br />

The ratio to inventory predicted above is dominated<br />

by the first factor, X/(h + L), in the cases (a majority)<br />

where the present power was comparable with the<br />

average power for the last half-life or so. We can then<br />

note for the various nuclides using L = 7 hr-' :<br />

Nuclide Half-life (days) hi(r, +<br />

""h10 2 79 0 0015<br />

IQ3RU 39 6 0 OQOl0<br />

'06RU 361 0 OOOOI<br />

111<br />

Ag 75 0.00055<br />

Comparing the observed ratios with these shows that<br />

what we observed in essentially ail cases was an order of<br />

magnitude or more greater. This indicates that the<br />

observed data have to be accounted for by something<br />

other than just the steady-state dissolved-atom concen-<br />

tration serving to drive the mass transfer processes.<br />

The concept that remains is that some form of<br />

suspended material contributed the major part of the<br />

activity found in the sample. Because this would<br />

represent a separate phase from the sait, the mixture<br />

28<br />

proportion could vary. The possible sources and behavior<br />

of such a mixture will be considered in a later<br />

section after other data, for surfaces, etc.. have been<br />

presented. We believe that the data on noblemetal<br />

fission products in salt are for the major part explicable<br />

in terms of this concept.<br />

Three elements included in the table of noblemetal<br />

data should be considered separately: niobium, iodine,<br />

and tellurium.<br />

6.6 Niobium<br />

Our information on niobium comes from the 35-day<br />

9s Nb daughter of 65-day " Zr. Thermodynamic con-<br />

siderations given earlier indicate that at fission product<br />

concentration levels, Nb4+ is likely to be in equilibrium<br />

with niobium metal if the redox potential of the salt is<br />

set by U3+/U4+ concentration ratios perhaps between<br />

0.81 arid 0.001. If Nb3+ species existed significantly at<br />

MSRE oxide concentrations, the stability of the soIuble<br />

form would be enhanced. If NhC were formed at a rate<br />

high enough to affect equilibrium behavior, then the<br />

indicated concentration of soluble niobium in equi-<br />

Iibriuin with a solid phase would be considerably<br />

decreased.<br />

Because "Nb is to be considered as a soluble species,<br />

direct comparison with inventory is relevant in the<br />

soluble case (when insoluble? it should exhibit a limiting<br />

ratio comparable to 34-day * mTe, or about 0.0001).<br />

The data for 95"b in salt sarnpIes do appear to have<br />

substantial ratio values, generally 0.5 to 0.3 at times<br />

when the salt was believed to be relatively oxidizing.<br />

When appreciable amounts of reducing agent, usudly<br />

beryllium metal, had been added, the activity relative to<br />

inventory approached zero (50.05). Frequentiy, slightly<br />

negative values resulted from the subtraction from the<br />

observed niobium activity at count time of that which<br />

would have accrued from the decay of "23 in the<br />

sample between the time of sampling and the time of<br />

counting.<br />

6.7 Iodine<br />

+.-<br />

Iodine, exemplified by 311, is indicated to be in the<br />

form of iodide ion at the redox potential of fuel salt,<br />

with little I2 being stripped as gas in the pump bowl.5<br />

Thermodjyiarnic calculations indicate that to strip 0.1%<br />

of the ' I as I2 ~ a U4+/IJ3+ of at least lo4 would have<br />

to exist. As far as is known, the major part of MSRE<br />

operation was not as oxidizing as this (however, because<br />

surne dissociation to iodine atoms can occur in the<br />

vapor, stripping could be somewhat easier). I ~+&&


.*.e activities relative to inventory were between 8 and<br />

113%, with most vaiues falling between 30 and 60%.<br />

What happened to the remainder is of interest. It<br />

appears likely that the tellurium precursor (largely<br />

25-min 31Te) was taken from solution in the salt<br />

before half had decayed to iodine, and of this tellurium,<br />

some, possibly half, might have been stripped: and the<br />

remainder deposited on surfaces. Perhaps half of the<br />

"'I resulting from decay should recoil into the<br />

adjacent salt. From such an argument we should expect<br />

about the levels of I that were seen.<br />

6.8 Tellurium<br />

Tellurium is both important and to some extent<br />

unique among the noble metals in that the element has<br />

a vapor pressure at reactor temperature (6SO"C) of<br />

about 13 torr. Since the fluorides of tellurium are<br />

unstable with respect to the element, at the redox<br />

potential of the fuel, we conclude that the gaseous<br />

element and the tellurium ion are the fundamental<br />

species. As a dissolved gas its behavior should be like<br />

xenon. The mass transfer loss rate coefficients indicated<br />

by Briggs4 would apply, E - (12X + S.7K + 7Kj, so<br />

that with high sticking factors, about -hr production<br />

would be the steady-state concentration, and half the<br />

tellurium would go to off-gas. The dissolved concentration<br />

for "Te, relative to inventory salt, would be<br />

about 0.0006, and for '"Te, about Q.OOOQ6. Again it<br />

is evident that the observations run higher than this.<br />

Recent observations by @. E. Bamberger and J. P.<br />

Young of <strong>ORNL</strong> suggest that a solubie, reactive form of<br />

telluride ion can exist in molten salt at a presently<br />

undefined redox potential. Such an ion could be an<br />

important factor in tellurium behavior. However, it is<br />

also plausible that tellurium is largely associated with<br />

undissolved solids, by chemisorption or reaction. Any<br />

of these phenomena would result in lower passage as a<br />

gas to Off-jids.<br />

The viewpoint that emerges with respect to noble-<br />

metal behavior in salt is that what we see is due to the<br />

appearance of highly dispersed but undissolved materid<br />

in the salt, a mobile separate phase, presumably solid,<br />

which bears much higher noble-metal fission product<br />

concentrations than the salt. Our samples taken from<br />

the pump bowl can only provide direct evidence<br />

concerning the salt within the spiral shield, but if the<br />

dispersion is fine enough and turnover not too slow, it<br />

should represent the salt of the pump bowl and<br />

circulating loop adequately.<br />

We have suggested that the noble metals have behaved<br />

as a mob& separate phase which is concentrated in<br />

29<br />

noble metals and is found in varied amounts in the salt<br />

as sampled. This is illustrated in Fig. 6.5, where the<br />

activities of the respective nuclides (relative to inven-<br />

tory salt) are plotted logarithmically from sample to<br />

sampie. Lines for each nuclide from sample to sample<br />

have been drawn. A mobile phase such as we postu-<br />

lated, concentrated in the noble metals, added in<br />

varying amounts to a salt depleted in noble metals,<br />

should result in lines between samples sloping all in the<br />

same direction. Random behavior wouid nut result.<br />

Thus the noblemetal fission products do exhibit a<br />

common behavior in salt, which can be associated with<br />

a commm mobile phase.<br />

The nature and amount of the mobile phase are nut<br />

established with certainty, but several possibilities exist,<br />

including (1) graphite particles, (2) tars from decom-<br />

posed lubricating oil from the pump shaft, (3) insoluble<br />

colloidal structural metal in the salt: (4) agglomerates of<br />

fission products on pump bowl surface and/or bubbles,<br />

(5) spalled fragments of fission product deposits on<br />

graphite or metal. As we shall later see, at least some of<br />

the material deposits on surfaces, and it is also indicated<br />

that some is associated with the gas-liquid interface in<br />

the primp bowl.<br />

References<br />

1. R. B. Gallaher, Operation of the Sampier-Enricher<br />

in the Molten Salt Reactor Experimen f, OR?&-TM-<br />

3524 (October 1391).<br />

2. R. C. Robertson, MSRE Design arid Operation<br />

Report, Part 1. Description of Reactor Design.<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-TM-728 (January 1965).<br />

3. R. E. Thoma, Chemical Aspects of ABRE Operafi(9~1,<br />

8RNL-4658 (December 197 I).<br />

4. R. B. Briggs and J. R. Tallackson, "Distribution of<br />

Noble-Metai Fission Products and Their Decay Heat ,"<br />

MSR Program Semiannu. Progr. Rep. Feb. 28, 1969,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4396, pp. 62-64; also a. B. Briggs, "Estimate of<br />

the Afterheat by Decay of Koble Metals in MSBR and<br />

Comparison with Data from the MSRE." internal<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong> memorandum, November 1968. (Internal document<br />

no dissemination authorized.)<br />

5. See R. P. Wichner, with C. F. Baes, "Side Stream<br />

Processing for Continuous Iodine and Xenon Removal<br />

from the MSWK Fuel," internal memorandum BRNL-<br />

CF-72-61? (Jnne 30, 1972). (Internal document no<br />

further disserninatioli authorized.)


11VS htlOlN3ANI 01 3AIlVl3tl AllAll3V<br />

6<br />

L -<br />

6<br />

4<br />

R


t p<br />

ul<br />

c<br />

d<br />

N P.<br />

2<br />

d<br />

Gi<br />

c??<br />

dd<br />

I:


Sample number 15-28s<br />

Sample weight, g 1.3328<br />

Date 10-12-68<br />

Megawatt-hours 0.1<br />

Power, hrw 0.00<br />

RPm 1180<br />

Pump bowl level, % 63.20<br />

Overflow rate, b/hr 1.4<br />

Voids, % 0.00<br />

Flow rate ofgas, std liters/min 3.30 He<br />

Sample line purge On<br />

SI-89 52.00 5.46 1.32B9<br />

0.198<br />

SI-90 10.264.00 5.86<br />

Y-9 1 58.80 5.57<br />

Ba-140 12.80 5.40<br />

Cs-137 10,958.00 6.58 5.5389<br />

1.355<br />

Ce-144 284.00 4.61 1.43E10<br />

0.295<br />

Zr-95 65.00 6.05 4.04B9<br />

0.279<br />

Nb-95 35.00 6.05 6.39E9<br />

0.740<br />

Mo-99 2.79 4.80<br />

Ru-103 39.60 1.99 5.1387<br />

0.025<br />

Ru-106 367.00 0.43 1.9788<br />

0.034<br />

Sb-125 986.00 0.08 1.62E7<br />

0.143<br />

Te-132 3.25 4.40<br />

I131 8.05 2.90<br />

Constituent<br />

U-233<br />

U, Total<br />

Li<br />

%e<br />

Zr<br />

32<br />

Table 6.8. Data for salt samples from MSRE pump bowl during uranium-233 operation<br />

1.222<br />

0.151<br />

44.35<br />

0.384<br />

25.28<br />

0.378<br />

41.3<br />

0.357<br />

15-323 1542s 15-51s<br />

60.9115 51.5684 56.9563<br />

10-15-68 10-29-68 11-6-68<br />

0.1 0.1 0.1<br />

0.00 0.00 0.00<br />

1180 1180 1180<br />

65.50 66.50 66.00<br />

2.9 3.7 1 .0<br />

0.60 0.00 0.00<br />

3.30 He 3.30 He 3.30 He<br />

On On On<br />

5.9889<br />

0.936<br />

2.4889<br />

0.609<br />

3.42B9<br />

0.840<br />

5.18E10<br />

1.077<br />

1.28E10<br />

0.914<br />

1.04E10<br />

1.159<br />

l.lSE5<br />

0.000<br />

8.6E5<br />

0.000<br />

7.48E3<br />

0.000<br />

7.86<br />

0.974<br />

63.3<br />

0.948<br />

109.1<br />

0.949<br />

Fission Product isotope@<br />

15-57s<br />

32.0493<br />

11-1 1-68<br />

0.1<br />

0.00<br />

1 180<br />

62.50<br />

0.8<br />

0.60<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

4.4789 3.7689 3.8489<br />

0.839 0.787 0.871<br />

2.8689<br />

0.703<br />

3.35E9<br />

0.823<br />

5.4 1 E10<br />

1.163<br />

1.07E10<br />

0.884<br />

7.12E9<br />

0.718<br />

3.3089<br />

0.81 1<br />

5.17E10<br />

1.134<br />

1.26E10<br />

1.135<br />

8.7189<br />

0.854<br />

3.77E9<br />

0.926<br />

5.61E10<br />

1.249<br />

1.02E10<br />

0.981<br />

1.08810<br />

1.059<br />

1.4586 4.7785 5.1286<br />

0.001 0.000 0.004<br />

4.6586 1.4286 1.7887<br />

0.001 0.000 0.003<br />

4.38E5 1.18E4 2.14B5<br />

0.004 0.000 0.002<br />

7.50<br />

0.929<br />

109.8<br />

0.95 1<br />

57.9<br />

0.867<br />

109.9<br />

0.907<br />

15-69s<br />

51.9611<br />

11-25-68<br />

0.1<br />

0.00<br />

1180<br />

56.00<br />

0.8<br />

0.60<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

3.4289<br />

0.842<br />

4.61E10<br />

1.060<br />

8.4689<br />

0.935<br />

2.0288<br />

0.020<br />

4.6483<br />

0.000<br />

7.82<br />

0.969<br />

68.3<br />

1.022<br />

105.3<br />

0.910<br />

164-FVS<br />

56.0914<br />

12-16-68<br />

12.5<br />

0.00<br />

1180<br />

62.30<br />

0.8<br />

0.60<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

2.9889<br />

1.014<br />

3.63E9<br />

0.894<br />

6.4489<br />

1.236<br />

2.5 1E8<br />

1.167<br />

2.81B9<br />

0.692<br />

4.55E10<br />

1.099<br />

1.02810<br />

1.382<br />

5.0889<br />

0.537<br />

3.1786<br />

0.096<br />

8.7586<br />

0.012<br />

2.2587<br />

0.004<br />

7.4285<br />

0.007<br />

3.9086<br />

0.092<br />

1.1488<br />

1.129<br />

6.53<br />

0.977<br />

7.85<br />

0.973<br />

108.0<br />

0.942<br />

65.1<br />

0.975<br />

87.5<br />

0.756


Constituent<br />

U-2 3 3 7.28<br />

1 .089<br />

U-total 23.54<br />

2.917<br />

Li 116.4<br />

1.008<br />

Be 65.97<br />

Q.988<br />

2r 138.4<br />

1.196<br />

7.11<br />

1.044<br />

6.18<br />

0.766<br />

107.5<br />

0.931<br />

65.1<br />

0.945<br />

135.1<br />

1.168<br />

33<br />

Table 6.8 (continued)<br />

Samde number 18-2-NFVS 184-NFVS 186-NFVS 18-12-NFV 18-19-NFV 1844-NFV 1845-NFV 1844-NFV<br />

Sample weight, g<br />

3.8651<br />

Date<br />

4-14-69<br />

Megawatt-hours<br />

12,222.0<br />

Powm, kiw<br />

8.00<br />

Mm<br />

I180<br />

hmp bowl kVd, % 61.30<br />

Overflow rate, Ib/h 7.4<br />

Voids, %<br />

0.60<br />

Flow rate of gas, std liters/min 3.30 He<br />

Sample Line purge On<br />

11.1866<br />

4-18-69<br />

12,810.0<br />

8.00<br />

1180<br />

63.10<br />

4.9<br />

0.60<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

6.7612<br />

4-23-69<br />

13,705 .O<br />

8.00<br />

1180<br />

63.20<br />

4.7<br />

0.60<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

12.6825<br />

5-269<br />

15,5 12.0<br />

8.00<br />

1180<br />

59.50<br />

3 .0<br />

0.60<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

12.669 f<br />

5-969<br />

16,848.0<br />

8.00<br />

1180<br />

58.90<br />

0.9<br />

0.60<br />

3.30 He<br />

OR<br />

3.6339<br />

5-2969<br />

19,784.0<br />

6.90<br />

990<br />

52.90<br />

0.0<br />

0.00<br />

2.30 He<br />

On<br />

14.0790<br />

6-169<br />

20,309.0<br />

0.00<br />

990<br />

50.00<br />

0.0<br />

0.00<br />

2.00 Ar<br />

OR<br />

14.9780<br />

6-1-69<br />

20,309.0<br />

0.00<br />

990<br />

55.30<br />

0.0<br />

0.00<br />

2.00 Ar<br />

OK<br />

Fission product isotope@<br />

Half-life<br />

Fission<br />

yield<br />

Isotope (9%)<br />

SI-89 52.00 5.46 7.36E10 7.60B10 4.24E10 1.12Ell 7.516310 1.00E1 I 1.01Ell 9.57ElO<br />

0.771 0.780 0.600 0.966 0.621 0.758 Q.754 0.720<br />

Y-9 1 58.80 5.57 1.44E11 9.02E10<br />

1.38Ell 1.49E1 1 1.32E11 1.35Ell 1.23Ell<br />

1.702 1.043<br />

1.340 1.380 1.109 1.116 1.019<br />

Ba-140 12.80 5.40 1.21Ell 1.43Ell 1.17Ell<br />

1.84EE 1 1.56Ell 1.65Ell 1.48E11<br />

0.911 1.100 0.813<br />

1.143 1 . OM 1.058 1.039<br />

cs-137 10,958.00 6.58 4.06E9 4.30E9 4.03E9 3.66h9 4.74E9 4.25E9 4.98E9 4.58B9<br />

0.835 0.878 0.811 0.718 0.915 0.786 0.914 0.840<br />

0-141 33.00 7.09 1.29Ell 1.12Ell 1.09E11 1.38Ell 1.41E11 1.45Ell 1.52Ell 1.39Ell<br />

0.908 0.783 0.712 0.807 0.806 0.784 0.813 0.747<br />

Ce-144 284.00 4.61 6.28E10 6.3OE10 5.50ElO 6.82EI0 6.25E10 5.67ElO 6.2i~ia 7.54~10<br />

1.222 1.214 1.034 1.227 1.096 0.937 1.016 1.234<br />

Nd-147 11.10 1.98 9.29E10 5.52E10<br />

3.90E10 2.36E9 6.82B10 S.80ElO<br />

1.488 1.150<br />

0.653 0.041 1.196 1.030<br />

ZI-95 65 .OO 6.05 8.50E10 8.96E10 7.40EIO 1.01 EI 1 1.13Ell 1.18E11 1.20Ell 1.13Ell<br />

m-95 35 .00 6.05<br />

0.966<br />

2.40E10<br />

0.994<br />

1.23E10<br />

0.792<br />

9.09~1 a<br />

0.944<br />

3.17E9<br />

1.009<br />

1.17E9<br />

0.952<br />

-3. 1OE9<br />

0.952<br />

3.33E10<br />

0.904<br />

- 2.00E9<br />

0.462 0.224 1.562 0.048 0.016 -0.036 0.374 -0.022<br />

MO-99 2.79 4.80 1.75E9 9.99B8 1 .?BE1 B 1.38~9 1.16E9 4.22E9 1.8OEll 1.45E10<br />

0.015 0.008 0.851 0.008 0.008 0.035 1.364 0.116<br />

Ru-103 39.60 1.99 E.93E10<br />

2.97E9 7.13E7 9.30E7 7.58E7<br />

4.29E8<br />

0.521<br />

0.074 0.002 0.002 0.002<br />

0.009<br />

Ru-106 367.00 0.43 1.28E9<br />

1.68E8<br />

2.03E7<br />

0.230<br />

0.030<br />

0.003<br />

Ag-111 7.50 0.02 2.02E7<br />

0.034<br />

8.35M<br />

1.232<br />

4.90E7<br />

0.066<br />

4.03E7<br />

0.060<br />

8.76E7<br />

Q.128<br />

2.44E4<br />

0.040<br />

Sb-125 986.00 0.08<br />

1.68E7<br />

0.068<br />

Te-129m 34.00 0.33<br />

1.29E10 3.02E7<br />

4.40E8 2.17B8<br />

1.828 0.004<br />

0.051 0.025<br />

Te-132 3.25 4.40 7.24E8 4.30B8 2.49E11 3.5638<br />

9.27638 1.74ElB 4.99E9<br />

0.007 0.004 1.804 0.002<br />

0.088 0.144 0.043<br />

1-131 8.05 2.90 7.33E9 2.49E10 2.11EIO 5.56310 6.59E10 2.78E10 3.62ElO 6.68E9<br />

0.101 0.352 2.260 0.595 0.739 0.339 0.438 0.082<br />

Salt constic tuentsb<br />

6.233<br />

0.933<br />

6.936<br />

0.859<br />

64.34<br />

Q.557<br />

60.93<br />

0.912<br />

91.4<br />

0.790<br />

6.72<br />

1 .005<br />

98.56<br />

0.853<br />

7.19<br />

1.076<br />

6.87<br />

0.851<br />

110.7<br />

0.958<br />

70.0<br />

1 .W8<br />

103.9<br />

0.898<br />

6.88<br />

1.029<br />

6.96<br />

0.862<br />

103.2<br />

0.894<br />

62.5<br />

0.936<br />

128.3<br />

1.109<br />

7.10 6.58<br />

1.062 0.984<br />

8.88 6.75<br />

1.100 0.836<br />

106.7 98.6<br />

0.924 0.854<br />

64.0 40.6<br />

0.998 1.057<br />

110.8 111.7<br />

0.958 0.965


34<br />

TabL 6.8 (continued)<br />

Sample RiilllbeF 19-55-FVS 19-57-FVS 19-58-FVS 19-59-FVS 19-76FVS 20-1 -FVS 20-19-FVS<br />

Sample WRkht, g 4.2936 3.3515 12.3829 8.4980 13.4771 3.1065 5.4784<br />

Date 10-1469 IO-17-69 10-1769 10-1749 10-3069 11-2669 12-5-69<br />

Megawatt-hours 26,642.0 27,163.0 27,177.0 27,177.0 29,645.0 30,315.0 31,927.0<br />

Power, RIW 8.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.50 8.00 8.00<br />

RJm 1186 1186 1188 1189 1176 1190 1200<br />

hump bow1 level, % 62.50 63.00 47.40 65.20 65.60 64.00 63.50<br />

(PVEK~~OW rate. lb/hr 2.6 3.7 9 .O 3.9 8.6 6.8 5.6<br />

Voids, % 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53<br />

Row rate ofgas, std litershin 3.30 Ne 3.30 He 3.30 He 3.30 We 3.30 He 3.30 He 3.30 He<br />

Sample line purge Off Off Off Qff Off Off Qff<br />

Fission product is~topeSa<br />

Wa,f-lif~ Fission<br />

BSOtope<br />

(days)<br />

yieId<br />

i”/o)<br />

Sr-89<br />

5 2 .00 5.46 6.82E10 6.9 1ElO 6.75E10 5.96E10 8.04E 10 4.80E 10 4.79E10<br />

0.770 0.747 0.730 0.645 0.731 0.625 0.532<br />

Y-9 1 58.80 5.57 8.08E10 9.54Ei0 9.87E10 1.89Eli 7.57E10 9.42ElO 8.48~10<br />

0.996 1.128 1.165 2.229 0.760 1.292 1.017<br />

%a-140 12.80 5.40 1.54Ell 1.58EI 1 1.49E11 1.57Ell 1.71Ell 4.82EI0 8.80E 10<br />

1.116 1.097 1.035 1.098 1.043 1.071 0.912<br />

CS-1 37 10,958.00 6.58 4.01E9 4.97E9 5.06E9 4.67E9 5.94E9 4.51E9 4.8689<br />

0.689 0.848 0.863 0.797 0.983 0.749 0.793<br />

Ce-141 33.00 7.09 1.11Ell i.12EIi 1.O5Ell 1.02Ell 1.32E11 6.12E10 8.04E 10<br />

0.902 0.868 0.814 0.791 0.846 0.643 0.693<br />

C‘e-144 284.00 4.6 1 6.70E10 6.5OElO 6.55E10 5.93El0 6.82E10 6.19E10 6.03E10<br />

1.216 1.165 1.174 1.063 1.156 1.128 1.058<br />

Nd-147 11.10 I .98 7.16E10 6.78E10 7.52E10 6.36E10 7.28B10<br />

1.341 1.224 1.360 1.161 1.170<br />

Zr-95 65.00 6.05 8.31E10 a.42~10 8.33E10 8.11E10 7.89E10 7.26B10 7.64EI0<br />

0.954 0.930 0.920 0.897 0.744 0.919 0.848<br />

m-95 35 .00 6.05 6.4UE9 3.55E9 -2.37B9 -9.50B8 2.30E9 1.49E10 4.36E9<br />

-0.092 0.050 -0.034 -0.013 0.030 0.186 0.054<br />

MU-99 2.79 4.80 1 .ow1 1 1.26Ell 3.llE9 2.98E10 2.33F3 4.71E10 1.14811<br />

0.626 0.754 0.019 0.186 0.014 3.340 0.781<br />

Ru-I03 39.60 1.99 5.8489 9.48E9 1.25B8 l.llE9 7.9887 3.4889 3.50E9<br />

0.180 0.279 0.004 0.033 0.002 0.289 0.1 io<br />

Ru-106 367.00 0.43 3.24E8 6.05E8 1.14E7 8.37E7<br />

7.81E8 2.90E8<br />

0.058 0.107 0.002 0.015<br />

0.140 0.05 1<br />

Ag-l 11 7.50 0.02 2.9687<br />

5.0187 I.16E8<br />

0.041<br />

0.478 0.234<br />

Te-129111 34.00 0.33 7.24B8 1.76B9<br />

1.38E8<br />

9.44E8 1.49E9<br />

0.128 0.295<br />

0.023<br />

0.222 0.278<br />

Te-132 3.25 4.40 6.40E9 1.22E10 2.28E38 1.0QE9 4.67E7 6.40E9 2.64E10<br />

0.042 0.080 0.002 0.007 0.000 0.547 0.206<br />

1-131 8.05 2.90 3.84E10 4.78E10 5.65El0 1.29E10 3.85E10 9.49E9 2.37E10<br />

0.444 0.539 0.640 0.148 0.402 0.648 0.407<br />

S ~ Constituentsh P<br />

Constituent<br />

U-233 7.60 7.14 6.84 6.68 7.28 7.13 4.67<br />

i.137 1.068 1.023 0.999 1.089 1.067 0.998<br />

U-tQtal 6.84 7.41 5.78 5.94 6.38 7.44 7.32<br />

0.848 0.918 0.716 0.736 0.791 0.922 0.907<br />

Li 1232.0 138.9 99.3 107.1 108.4 100.6 87.7<br />

10.669 1.203 0.860 0.927 0.939 0.871 5.759<br />

Be . 68.2 67.5 64.7 65.8 62.4 68.7 65.3<br />

1.021 1.010 0.969 0.985 0.934 1.028 0.978<br />

ZP 133.5 160.5 127.7 131.0 75.8<br />

i 10.7 170.5<br />

1.154 1.381 1.104 1.132 0.655 0.957 1.474


Sample number 19-1 -FVS<br />

Sample weight, g 11.2623<br />

Date 8-11-69<br />

Megawatt-hours 20,309.0<br />

Power, MW 0.00<br />

Rpm 1189<br />

hump bowl level, % 71.50<br />

Ove~flow rate, Ib/hr 0.0<br />

Voids, % 0.00<br />

Flow rate of gas. std litersimin 3.30 He<br />

Sample line purge On<br />

lsotops<br />

Sr-89<br />

Y-9 1<br />

Ba-140<br />

cs-137<br />

Ce-141<br />

Ce-144<br />

Nd-147<br />

Zr-95<br />

Nb-95<br />

Ma-99<br />

Ru-103<br />

WU-106<br />

Ag-111<br />

Te-l29m<br />

Te-132<br />

1-1 3 1<br />

Constituent<br />

61-2 3 3<br />

U-total<br />

Li<br />

Be<br />

Half-life Fission<br />

(days)<br />

yield<br />

(%l-<br />

52.00 5.46 4.2288<br />

0.809<br />

58.80 5.57 1.9488<br />

0.004<br />

12.80 5.40 1.12E7<br />

0.004<br />

10,958.00 6.58 1.35E38<br />

0.025<br />

33.00 4.09 6.92B7<br />

0.002<br />

284.00 4.61 4.94B8<br />

0.010<br />

11.10 1.98<br />

65.00 6.05 1.60E8<br />

0.003<br />

35.00 6.05 8.79E9<br />

0.111<br />

2.79 4.80<br />

39.60 1.99 9.53B8<br />

0.071<br />

369.00 0.43 2.23E8<br />

Q.023<br />

7.50 0.02<br />

34.00 0.33 l.97E8<br />

0.104<br />

3.35 4.40<br />

8.05 2.90 4.70E7<br />

0.281<br />

8.0520<br />

0.008<br />

0.0766<br />

0.009<br />

118.1<br />

1.023<br />

90.7<br />

1.358<br />

5.79<br />

0.050<br />

35<br />

Table 6.8 (continued)<br />

196-FVS 14-9-FVS 19-24-FVS 19-36-FVS 1942-FVS 1944-FVS 1947-FVS<br />

0.2130 10.2040 1.7933<br />

8-1569 8-1869 9-1069<br />

20,309.0 20,309.0 22,255.0<br />

0.00 0.01 0.01<br />

1190 1189 1165<br />

62.00 65.00 62.10<br />

0.7 2.4 4.7<br />

0.00 0.60 0.70<br />

3.30 He 3.30 He 2.90 Ar<br />

On On 0 ff<br />

7.80E8<br />

0.017<br />

7.6988<br />

0.016<br />

5.35E7<br />

0.022<br />

5.36E8<br />

0.100<br />

5.49B9<br />

0.152<br />

1.07E9<br />

0.021<br />

7.02E6<br />

0.014<br />

5.44E8<br />

0.010<br />

-8.33E7<br />

-0.001<br />

3.88E7<br />

0.003<br />

1.02E7<br />

0.002<br />

2.08E7<br />

0.012<br />

0,1454<br />

0.022<br />

0.1454<br />

0.018<br />

2.46<br />

8.021<br />

110.80<br />

0.958<br />

Fission product isotope6<br />

3.13El0<br />

0.700<br />

1.81E10<br />

0.393<br />

1.79E9<br />

0.848<br />

2.74E9<br />

0.516<br />

2.04E10<br />

0.600<br />

4.51E10<br />

0.913<br />

7.50E7<br />

0.184<br />

3.75E10<br />

0.723<br />

2.60ElO<br />

0.343<br />

8.48B6<br />

0 .OO 1<br />

5.05E10<br />

0.886<br />

7.58E10<br />

1.366<br />

1.22E10<br />

0.190<br />

4.67E9<br />

0.848<br />

4.78E10<br />

0.748<br />

5.OSElO<br />

1.000<br />

3.00E9<br />

0.119<br />

5.24E10<br />

0.859<br />

2 2 5 El 0<br />

0.33Q<br />

1.85E10<br />

0.220<br />

3.83E9<br />

0.209<br />

1.24E9<br />

0.233<br />

2.21E9<br />

0.742<br />

1.83ElO<br />

0.236<br />

2.55E110<br />

0.596<br />

Sait constituent&<br />

6.54 7.06<br />

0.978 1.056<br />

4.13 5.26<br />

0.512 0.652<br />

77.4 95.4<br />

0.690 0.826<br />

52.1 71.6<br />

0.780 1.042<br />

64.40 131.1<br />

6.559 1.133<br />

14 .O 175<br />

9-29-69<br />

23,838.0<br />

5 .50<br />

608<br />

58.20<br />

0.9<br />

0 .00<br />

3.35 He<br />

Off<br />

5.24EIO<br />

0.820<br />

6.04E10<br />

0.998<br />

7.10E10<br />

0.938<br />

6.19E9<br />

1.101<br />

5.95810<br />

0.964<br />

5.49L10<br />

1.068<br />

2.71 E10<br />

0.944<br />

5.70E10<br />

0.858<br />

-5.76E9<br />

-0.086<br />

1.51E9<br />

0.019<br />

4.72E7<br />

0.002<br />

4.23E7<br />

0.115<br />

i.21E7<br />

0.003<br />

4.36E.8<br />

0.006<br />

2.54E10<br />

0.576<br />

6.28<br />

0.940<br />

6.42<br />

0.796<br />

86.6<br />

0.750<br />

61.2<br />

0.916<br />

115.7<br />

1 .000<br />

2.1662<br />

10-3-69<br />

24,39 1 .0<br />

7.00<br />

1176<br />

68.00<br />

6.3<br />

0.53<br />

3.30 He<br />

Off<br />

5.87EIO<br />

0.859<br />

7.19EiO<br />

1.123<br />

8S8El0<br />

0.975<br />

7.67E9<br />

1.355<br />

7.26E10<br />

0.841<br />

5.84P10<br />

1.123<br />

4.08E 10<br />

1.214<br />

6.531310<br />

0.932<br />

-4.00E9<br />

-0.060<br />

4.78E10<br />

0.431<br />

3.14E9<br />

0.133<br />

4.80B8<br />

0.089<br />

9.05E7<br />

0.202<br />

7.24E8<br />

8.181<br />

9.59E9<br />

0.098<br />

3.47E10<br />

0.652<br />

9.28<br />

1.089<br />

3.73<br />

0.462<br />

93.3<br />

0.808<br />

70.5<br />

1.055<br />

149.9<br />

1.286<br />

4.9789<br />

10-669<br />

24,949.0<br />

8.00<br />

1188<br />

64.00<br />

4.4<br />

0.53<br />

3.30 He<br />

Off<br />

5.73El0<br />

0.780<br />

8.24E10<br />

1.208<br />

1.02Ell<br />

0.990<br />

4.64E8<br />

0.081<br />

7.8SEi0<br />

0.819<br />

5.78E10<br />

1 .095<br />

4.64E10<br />

1.174<br />

7.52E10<br />

1.011<br />

3.54E4<br />

-0.053<br />

5.85El0<br />

0.412<br />

1.16E9<br />

0.045<br />

7.15E4<br />

0.013<br />

3.23B8<br />

0.596<br />

2.26E9<br />

0.018<br />

5.72E 10<br />

0.89 1<br />

6.94<br />

1.038<br />

4.93<br />

0.611<br />

97.3<br />

0.842<br />

68.4<br />

1.024<br />

157.6<br />

1.362<br />

2.1144<br />

10-7-69<br />

25,190.0<br />

8.00<br />

1175<br />

61.40<br />

1.8<br />

0.53<br />

3.35 He<br />

Off<br />

6.74E10<br />

0.889<br />

8.72El0<br />

1.244<br />

1.07E1 1<br />

0.982<br />

4.55E9<br />

0.795<br />

8.60E10<br />

0.860<br />

6.09E IO<br />

1.117<br />

5 .om10<br />

1.202<br />

7.55ElO<br />

0.990<br />

1.77E9<br />

0.026<br />

1.26Ei 1<br />

0.829<br />

4.1 OE9<br />

0.153<br />

2.92E8<br />

0.053<br />

5.88E4<br />

0.102<br />

8.99E8<br />

0.194<br />

8.52E9<br />

0.064<br />

7.36E9<br />

0.’108<br />

7.24<br />

1.083<br />

5.24<br />

0.649<br />

111.3<br />

0.964<br />

61.3<br />

0.918<br />

129.2<br />

l.i 17


Sample number 17-2-FVS<br />

Sample weight, g 53.3293<br />

Date 1-1469<br />

Megawatt-hours 13.5<br />

Power, MW 0.45<br />

Rpm 1180<br />

Pump bowl level, 7% 59.20<br />

Overflow rate, Ibjhr 3.8<br />

Voids, 70 0.60<br />

Flow rate of gas, std litersjmin 3.30 He<br />

Sample line purge On<br />

Half-life<br />

Fission<br />

yield<br />

lsotope<br />

SI-89<br />

(days)<br />

52.00<br />

t%)<br />

~.<br />

5.46 1.3889<br />

0.687<br />

Sr-90 10,264.00 5.86 2.87E9<br />

0.709<br />

Y-9 1 58.80 5.57 2.43B9<br />

0.657<br />

Ba-140 12.80 5.40 1.3788<br />

1.421<br />

CS-137 10,958.00 6.58 3.00E9<br />

0.741<br />

Ce-141 33.00 7.09<br />

Ce-144<br />

Nd-147<br />

Zr-95<br />

“5<br />

RIO-99<br />

Ru-103<br />

Ru-106<br />

Ag-1 11<br />

Te-129m<br />

Te-132<br />

1-131<br />

Constituent<br />

U-233<br />

U-total<br />

Li<br />

Be<br />

284.00 4.61 4.23E10<br />

1.096<br />

11.10 1.98<br />

65.00 6.05<br />

35.00 6.05<br />

2.79 4.80<br />

39.60 1.99<br />

367.00 0.43<br />

7.50 0.02<br />

34.00 0.33<br />

3.25 4.40<br />

8.05 2.90<br />

4.28E9<br />

0.790<br />

4.18~9<br />

0.5 19<br />

S.IlE8<br />

2.481<br />

2.1367<br />

0.050<br />

1.4687<br />

0.003<br />

1.15E6<br />

2.573<br />

3.69E6<br />

0.257<br />

5.99E8<br />

3.675<br />

8.78~7<br />

1.672<br />

6.39<br />

0.956<br />

7.4 I<br />

0.918<br />

100.9<br />

0.874<br />

62.9<br />

0.942<br />

98.90<br />

0.855<br />

36<br />

Table 6.8 (continued)<br />

11-7-FVS 17-10-FVS 17-22-FVS 17-29-FVS 17-31-FVS 17-32-NFV<br />

6.0976<br />

1-2369<br />

752.0<br />

4.40<br />

1180<br />

57.20<br />

1.8<br />

0.60<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

5 .5 8E9<br />

0.477<br />

4.59E8<br />

0.112<br />

1.06E10<br />

0.964<br />

2.64E10<br />

0.805<br />

2.4969<br />

a.680<br />

i.02~1a<br />

0.531<br />

2.75E10<br />

0.702<br />

8.87E9<br />

0.657<br />

9.47E9<br />

0.717<br />

2.34E9<br />

0.289<br />

9.0969<br />

0.1 17<br />

1.59EX<br />

0.034<br />

7.99E6<br />

0.002<br />

2.01E7<br />

0.091<br />

1.76E8<br />

0.208<br />

2.06E10<br />

0.307<br />

1.02E10<br />

0.403<br />

4.72<br />

0.706<br />

90.4<br />

0.783<br />

13.21 73 38.3200<br />

1-2869 2-28-69<br />

1244.0 5757.0<br />

4.70 7.00<br />

1180 942<br />

56.80 64.50<br />

1.6 0.1<br />

0.60 0.00<br />

3.30 He 3.30 He<br />

On On<br />

Pision product isotope#<br />

1.06E10<br />

0.596<br />

3.12E9<br />

0.755<br />

1.97E10<br />

1.224<br />

3.33E10<br />

0.688<br />

3.45B9<br />

0.833<br />

2.83EI0<br />

0.443<br />

2.46E10<br />

0.618<br />

1.93E10<br />

0.985<br />

1.62E10<br />

0.890<br />

-2.0013<br />

0.023<br />

4.60E10<br />

0.525<br />

X.34E7<br />

0.01 1<br />

2.69E6<br />

0.001<br />

2.66E7<br />

0.020<br />

2.35E9<br />

0.030<br />

1.30E10<br />

0.369<br />

3.52E10<br />

0.554<br />

7.26E10<br />

1.310<br />

4.76ElO<br />

0.384<br />

4.37E8<br />

0.09 8<br />

8.34El0<br />

0.802<br />

4.89E10<br />

1.072<br />

4.65E10<br />

0.985<br />

5.10ElO<br />

0.887<br />

-1.19E9<br />

-0.050<br />

1.34E4<br />

0.010<br />

1.98E7<br />

0.001<br />

I .40E6<br />

0.000<br />

2.6386<br />

0.004<br />

l.lOE7<br />

0.002<br />

2.55E9<br />

0.020<br />

3.37E10<br />

0.456<br />

Salt constituent@<br />

6.116 5.98<br />

0.915 0.895<br />

5.570 3.19<br />

0.690 0.395<br />

117.68 91.0<br />

1.019 0.788<br />

61.78 57.5<br />

0.925 0.861<br />

102.14 92.7<br />

0.883 0.801<br />

46.2666<br />

3-26-69<br />

9158.0<br />

6.90<br />

1050<br />

57.80<br />

1.3<br />

0.05<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

6.56610<br />

0.765<br />

9.35B10<br />

1.221<br />

1.38E11<br />

1.078<br />

4.30E9<br />

0.91 1<br />

1.12EIl<br />

0.855<br />

6.33E10<br />

1.276<br />

5.45810<br />

1.216<br />

7.71E10<br />

0.983<br />

2.15E10<br />

0.513<br />

4.63~8<br />

0.004<br />

7.44E8<br />

0.022<br />

6.0967<br />

0.010<br />

1.15E9<br />

0.012<br />

1.98E10<br />

0.284<br />

7.01<br />

1.049<br />

4.88<br />

0.605<br />

110.2<br />

0.954<br />

61.47<br />

0.920<br />

110.9<br />

0.959<br />

57.3671<br />

4-169<br />

15,168 .0<br />

7.20<br />

1050<br />

61.50<br />

3 .0<br />

0.05<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

5.86E10<br />

0.630<br />

1.20E10<br />

2.526<br />

5.22EI0<br />

0.646<br />

1.46Ell<br />

1.050<br />

3.89E9<br />

0.812<br />

I.0PEII<br />

0.568<br />

5.64E10<br />

i.108<br />

5 .60E 10<br />

1.083<br />

7.84B1.10<br />

0.921<br />

1.49E10<br />

0.322<br />

1.8969<br />

0.014<br />

6.46EI<br />

0.002<br />

8.59E7<br />

0.133<br />

1.25EB<br />

0.019<br />

4.78E9<br />

0.038<br />

2.37E10<br />

0.305<br />

7.88<br />

1.179<br />

5.916<br />

0.733<br />

107.0<br />

0.926<br />

71.23<br />

1.066<br />

15.25<br />

0.650<br />

5.6200<br />

4-369<br />

10,456.0<br />

7.20<br />

1050<br />

60.40<br />

4.5<br />

0.05<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

7.21El0<br />

0.758<br />

7.9 1 E 10<br />

0.942<br />

1.44Ell<br />

1.014<br />

3.69E9<br />

0.766<br />

1.16E11<br />

0.800<br />

5.97 IS 10<br />

1.164<br />

6.11E10<br />

1.157<br />

8.37EIO<br />

0.962<br />

1.48E I0<br />

0.311<br />

4.92E8<br />

0.003<br />

8.28E8<br />

0.022<br />

5.3584<br />

0.081<br />

4.52E8<br />

0.003<br />

3.22E10<br />

0.404<br />

7.892<br />

0.978<br />

i12.1<br />

0.97 i<br />

63.7<br />

0.954<br />

134.7<br />

1.164<br />

“Each entry for the fission product isotopes consists of two numbers. The first number is the radioactivity of the isotope in the<br />

sample expressed in disintegrations per minute per gram of salt. The second number is the ratio of the isotope to the amount<br />

caIcuhted for I g of inventory salt at time of sampling.<br />

bEach entry for the salt constituents consists of two numbers. The first number is the amount of the constituent in the sample<br />

expressed in milligrams per gram of salt. The second number is the ratio to the amount calculated for 1 g of inventory salt at time of<br />

sampling.


..........


Material<br />

CGB#l I. Liquid<br />

G


V


Nuclide Sr-89<br />

Fission yield, % 5.86<br />

Half-life, days 52<br />

--<br />

§ample<br />

NO.<br />

Date<br />

19-68 l(r27-69<br />

18-26 5-1 9-69<br />

19-67 10-24-69<br />

19-66 10-24-69<br />

bration Materid<br />

19-68 10 min Graphite<br />

Metal<br />

18-26 1 hr Graphite<br />

Metal<br />

19-67 3 hr Graphite<br />

Metal<br />

19-66 IOhr Graphite<br />

Netal<br />

Table 7.2. Deposition of fkbn products ow graphite and metal specimens<br />

in float-window capsule immersed for various periods in MSRE pump bowl liquid At<br />

All specimens exposed at reactor powr of 8 MW<br />

Ba-140 Nd-147 Ce-I41 CE-144 21-95 Nb-35 M10-99 Ru-103 Ru-106 &-I11 Te-132 Te-129 1-131<br />

5.4 1.98 7.09 4.61 6.05 6.05 4.8 1.99 0.24 0.024 4.4 0.33 2.9<br />

12.8 11.1 33 284 65 35 2.79 39.6 367 7.5 3.25 34 8.05<br />

__<br />

lnvena0ry<br />

Lkintegxafions per minute per milligram of EPI~<br />

1.0688 1.60E8 6.0987 1.5088 5.72E7 I.02E8 9.5087 1.65E8 3.9487 3.26E6 7.8885 1.51E.8 1.51E7 9.44E7<br />

1.2888 1.62EX 5.99E7 3.8388 S.9OE7 1.20E8 7.9487 1.43E8 4.85E7 3.3986 7.34E5 1.3288 1.85E7 R.84E1<br />

i.02~8 1.5688 5.95~7 1.44t8 5.7687 9 . ~ 7 7.36~7 3.64E8 5.79~7 3.2386 7.77~5 i.5m 1.45~7 9.29~7<br />

I.02E8 1.5688 5.93E7 1.4488 5.75E7 9.RSE7 7.34E7 1.6488 3.47E7 3.2386 7.76E5 1.50E8 1.4487 5.2E8<br />

Disintegrations per minute p ~od~ed by MSRE in I kr per square sentimeter of MSRE surface<br />

1.62ER 6.1H 2.6t8 3.IE8 2.3F7 1.388 1.288' 2.589 7.2E7 9.485 4.686 1.9F9 3.OE7 5.2E8<br />

Deposit activity<br />

Expressed as ratio of activity per sqriare centimeter to amount calculated For 1 mg of inventory salt at time of sampling<br />

0.12 0.005<br />

0.12 0.005<br />

0.07 0.003<br />

O.I€ 0.019<br />

0.09 0.004<br />

0.07 0.006<br />

0.06 0.004<br />

0.08 0.030<br />

0.03 9.006<br />

0.03 0.015<br />

0.02 0.003<br />

0.03 0.002<br />

0.10<br />

u.17<br />

0.001<br />

0 09 0.001<br />

0.10 0.021<br />

0.06 0.002<br />

0.09 0.003<br />

0.10 0.0004<br />

0.98 0.004<br />

0.08 0.001 1<br />

0.13 0.002<br />

0.13 0.016<br />

0.10 0.004<br />

~1.001 0.005<br />

0.002 0.013<br />

0.011 0.013<br />

0.015 0.024<br />

0.005 0.013<br />

0.005 0.009<br />

0.004


PHOTO 97t67<br />

41<br />

4. The noble metals run appreciably higher -- two<br />

orders of magnitude 01 so - than the other<br />

elements.<br />

Salt samples taken at about the same times were<br />

generally relatively depleted in noble metals. though<br />

they contained amounts which appeared to vary simi-<br />

larly from sample to sample. Thus it appears that the<br />

surfaces were capable of preferentially removing some<br />

nobre-metal-bearing material borne by the salt moving<br />

through the sample shield.<br />

5. The noble metals increased somewhat with time,<br />

but considerabljr less than proportionateiy, as if an<br />

initial rapid uptake were followed by a much<br />

slower rise.<br />

Most importantly, the increase in activity level with<br />

time implies that the activity came from salt exposure<br />

rather than any explanation related to passage through<br />

the pump bowl gas, coupled with the further assump-<br />

tion that the window improperly and inexplicably was<br />

open.<br />

6. As mentioned earlier, the activity ratios on the<br />

inventory basis are about equal for the O3 >' ' 6 ~ u<br />

and ' 32 3129mTe isotope pairs. But the longerlived<br />

isotope is generaily somewhat lower. This is<br />

consistent with the deposition of material whish<br />

has been held up in the system for periods that are<br />

appreciable but not as long as the inventory<br />

accumulation period.<br />

Thus foi noble metals the data of Table 7.2 imply the<br />

accumulation from salt of colloidal noblemetal mate-<br />

rial, which has been in the system for an appreciable<br />

period but is carried by the salt in amounts below<br />

inventory, but with the surface retaining much more (in<br />

proportion to imventory) of the noblemetal nuclides<br />

than it does the salt-seeking nuclides. For the periods of<br />

exposure used, deposit intensities of given nuclides on<br />

metal and graphite did not appear to differ appreciably.<br />

7.4 Mist<br />

One factor to be considered in the interpretation of<br />

pump bowl sample data is the presence of mist in the<br />

gas space' within the mist shield in the pump bowl.<br />

There is much evidence for this, none clearer than Fig.<br />

0 0.25 0.50 7.3, which is a photograph of a '/z -in. strip of stainless<br />

u<br />

BNCHES<br />

~ig. 7.2. sample holder for short-term deposition test (fits<br />

capsule with windows).<br />

into O M ~ ~ H<br />

steel (holding electron microscope sample screens) that<br />

was exposed in the sampler cage for 12 hr. The lower<br />

end of the 441. strip was at the salt surface.<br />

clearly, the photograph shows that larger droplets<br />

accumulated at lower levels, doubtless as a consequence


PHOTO 1855-74<br />

SALT SURFACE<br />

Fig. 7.3. Salt dropkets on il metal strip exp~sed in MSRE pump<br />

bowl gas space for IO hr.<br />

of a greater mist density nearer the bottom of the gas<br />

space, at least the larger drops representing the accumu-<br />

lation of numerous mist particles.<br />

The mist must have been generated in one of two<br />

ways. The first is outside the sampler shield by the<br />

vigorous spray into the pump bowl liquid, which also<br />

generated spray by the rising of large and small<br />

entrained bubbles. This would be followed by drifting<br />

42<br />

of some of this spray mist around the spiral 1/8-in.-wide<br />

aperture of the shield.<br />

The second way in which mist could develop within<br />

the sampler shield is by the rise of entrained bubbles<br />

too fine to resist the undertow of the pump bowl<br />

liquid. As salt entered the bottom of the sampler shield,<br />

these bubbles would rise within the more quiescent<br />

liquid and would generate a fine mist as they broke the<br />

surface. ~n partacuIar,2 the liquid rushing to fill the<br />

bubble space would create a “jet” droplet (as well as<br />

corona droplets) which might be impelled to a consider-<br />

able height - in the case of champagne, tickling the<br />

nose several inches away.<br />

The jet droplets can accumulate or concentrate<br />

surface contaminants3’4 on the droplet surface, being<br />

refeired to as a surface microtome by MacEntyre. Jet<br />

droplets are likely to be about 10% of bubble diameter,<br />

thereby a few tens of microns in diameter. It is not<br />

certain how much of the mist within the sampler shield<br />

was produced from outside and how much from within;<br />

however, at least some of the mist must have been<br />

produced within the shield, and this explanation ap-<br />

pears sufficient to account for the phenomena ob-<br />

served.<br />

Kohn2 shows that fine graphite dust was carried from<br />

the surface of molten kiF-BeF2 (66-34 mole %> by jet<br />

droplets, with the implication that nonwetted colloidal<br />

material on the fuel surface could similarly become<br />

gas-borne ~<br />

Thus a plausible mechanism for the transport of<br />

noblemetal fission products by mists could involve the<br />

transport of unwetted colloidal material in the salt. This<br />

could be transported to the surface of the liquid within<br />

the sampler shield, by rising bubbles, and should<br />

accumulate there to some extent if surface outflow<br />

around the spiral was impeded. A jet droplet would<br />

concentrate this material significantly on its surface,<br />

and any receiver in the gas phase would indicate such<br />

concentration. Because most droplets most of the time<br />

would settle back into the surface, the accumulation<br />

of noble-metal-bearing colloidal material on the surfice<br />

would not strongly be altered by this, and accumulation<br />

would continue until by various mechanisms inflow and<br />

outflow quantities became balanced.<br />

References<br />

1. J. Ha. Engel, P. W. Maubenreich, and A. Houtzeel.<br />

Spray, Mist, Bubbles, and Foam in the Molten Salt


- P<br />

A<br />

WC<br />

- e<br />

i,<br />

9<br />

c<br />

i,<br />

W<br />

P<br />

x<br />

P<br />

z -l<br />

I<br />

e<br />

;n<br />

0<br />

Q<br />

- -4<br />

I<br />

01 -I<br />

e<br />

N<br />

m<br />

I<br />

m -I<br />

vr VI<br />

n<br />

I<br />

N 0<br />

m I<br />

-i<br />

4<br />

In I<br />

I<br />

m -J<br />

b<br />

.I<br />

w<br />

e<br />

m I<br />

-2.<br />

c<br />

4<br />

I<br />

m<br />

-J<br />

D a m O c<br />

Q 0 m m<br />

P<br />

P<br />

PIJP"??<br />

wcnmm-a<br />

m u ~ e m<br />

u m r<br />

C'


e<br />

PI 4 N i 3 i m 4 A<br />

m 9 m m m m 4 d r-4<br />

58<br />

LRS!<br />

lr,<br />

008


c c<br />

$ 2<br />

A r c<br />

r e<br />

P<br />

c c<br />

"a<br />

N o \<br />

M 'A<br />

m m<br />

I I<br />

Y Y<br />

I I<br />

m m<br />

Q ' 9<br />

W o o<br />

I I<br />

c c<br />

r'9<br />

0 1<br />

? 9 "<br />

m m<br />

' 9 -<br />

w m<br />

+ a<br />

c<br />

W W N F f f i<br />

0 0 0 4 8<br />

w w<br />

.I<br />

,?1<br />

"in<br />

s4<br />

bb<br />

t.2 rn<br />

-4<br />

f !"<br />

P w<br />

*E<br />

x<br />

c t<br />

NN NN<br />

r0 0<br />

r<br />

c c<br />

o r


18-21<br />

19-25<br />

18-29<br />

18-42<br />

19-13<br />

19-14<br />

19-15<br />

19-16<br />

19-19<br />

19-20<br />

19-23<br />

19-28<br />

19-29<br />

19-37<br />

19-38<br />

19-41<br />

19-46<br />

19-54<br />

19-56<br />

19-62<br />

19-64<br />

19-65<br />

19-70<br />

19-73<br />

19-77<br />

19-78<br />

19-79<br />

20-9<br />

20-12<br />

20-21<br />

20-32<br />


Fuel salt was co?ltl~UQtISly sprayed through the pimp<br />

bowl purge gas to permit reniovril of all possible xenon<br />

and krypton fission poducts. The purge gas passed into<br />

the off-f-gas hies and thence lo ckarcoal beds.<br />

The examination1 of surfaces exposed in the gaseous<br />

rcgion above the liquid within the sampler shield spiral<br />

in the pump bowl indicated the presence of appreciable<br />

concentrations of noble metals. raising a question as to<br />

what might actually be in the pump howl gas. (The data<br />

or1 surfaces exposed in the pump bowl are in a separate<br />

section.)<br />

8.1 Freeze-Valve Capsule<br />

48<br />

8. GAS SAMPLES<br />

The transfer tube and spray shield region above the<br />

pump bowl liquid level were not designed as a facility<br />

for sanipling the pump bowl gas. However, the inven-<br />

tion of a freeze-valve capsule sampling device2 (men-<br />

tioned earlier for salt samples) made it possible to<br />

obtain useful samples from the gas region within the<br />

spray shield. It was required that the sampling device be<br />

small enough to pass freely through the bends of the<br />

1'I2-in. diam. saiiipling pipe and that it should operate<br />

automatically when it reached the pump bowl.<br />

The device, the original form of which is shown in<br />

Fig. 8.1, operatcd satisfactorily to furnish 20-cc samples<br />

of gas. The capsule was evacuated and heated to 600"C,<br />

then cooled under vacuum to allow the EiZ BeF4 in the<br />

seal to freeze. The double seal picvented loss of<br />

Liz BeF4 from the capsule during sampling. The<br />

weighed, evacuated capsule was lowered into the pump<br />

bowl thiough the salt sampling pipe and positioned<br />

with the bottom of the capsule 1 in. above the fuel salt<br />

level for 10 min. The freeze seal melted at the 600°C<br />

pump bowl temperature, and gas filled the 20-cc<br />

volume. The capsule was then withdrawn to 2 ft above<br />

the pump bowl and allowed to cool.<br />

The cooled resealed capsule was withdrawn from the<br />

sampling pipe and trarisported in a carrier to the<br />

analytical hot cells. A Teflon plug was placed over the<br />

protruding capillary, and the exterior of the capsule was<br />

thoroughly leached free of fission product activities.<br />

The top of the capsule was cut off, and the interior<br />

metal surface was leached with basic and acid solutio~ls<br />

for 1 hr. The bottom of the Capsule was then cut at two<br />

levels to expose the bottom chamber of the capsule.<br />

The four capsule pieces were placed in a beaker and<br />

thoroughly leached with 8 N IIN03 until the remaining<br />

activity was less than 0.1% of the origina! activity. The<br />

three leach solutions were analyLed radiochemically.<br />

VOLUME<br />

20cc-<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-OWG 69-4784A<br />

-- STAINLESS STEEL<br />

CABLE<br />

Fig. 8.1. Freeze valve capsule-<br />

3/,-in. OD NICKEL<br />

NlCKEL CAPILLARY<br />

Using this device the first gas sample was obtained in<br />

late December 1966, during run 10. In all, eight such<br />

samples were taken during operation with U fuel.<br />

Data for these sanrples are shown in Table 8.2 (at the<br />

end of this chapter).<br />

8.2 Validity of Gas Samples<br />

There are at least two particular questions that should<br />

be addresscd to the data obtained on gas samples.<br />

First, do the data indicate that a valid sample of<br />

pump bowl gas was obtained? Second, what fraction of<br />

the MSRE production of any @veri fission product<br />

chain is represented by flow to off-gas of a gas of the<br />

indicated composition?


.. .<br />

'*w.p'<br />

The first question was approached by estimating the<br />

activity of 50-day *'Sr resulting from the stripping of<br />

3.2-min "Kr into the pump bowl purge gas. For<br />

example. the activity of full-power samples 11-46,<br />

11-53, and 13-26 averaged 3.8 X IO9 dis/niin fm 89Sr,<br />

indicating that the gas contained 2.0 X IOL3 atoms of<br />

"Sr per cubic centimeter of capsule volume. If the<br />

only losses of "Kr were by decay or 100% efficient<br />

stripping in the pump bow!, then<br />

49<br />

Two other gas samples (1 1-42 and 12-7) were taken<br />

while the system had been at negligible power for several<br />

hours. Concentrations of Sr were about an order of<br />

magnitude iower (0.06 and 0.23) in accord with the<br />

above viewpoint; of course. purely gas samples should<br />

go to zero, and purely salt samples should &e unaffected<br />

within such a period.<br />

Thus we conclude that the samples are quite possibly<br />

valid gas samples, probably with some mist involve-<br />

ment.<br />

The salt-seeking elements. including zirconium cer-<br />

ium, and uranium, do not involve volatilization as a<br />

means of entering the gas phase. It is sliown in Table<br />

8.2 that an individual gas sample contains quantities of<br />

these elements equivalent to a common magnitude of<br />

inventory salt. Thus the conjectured presence of salt<br />

mist in the gas samples appears verified.<br />

The noble metals appeared in the gas samples in<br />

quantities that are orders of magnitude higher (in<br />

proportion to inventory salt) than was found for the<br />

salt-seeking elements.<br />

Thus appreciable quantities of noble metals are<br />

involved in the gas-phase samples. If they are rapidly<br />

stripped as a result of volatility, then the observed<br />

concentrations represent the stripping of a major part<br />

of the fission products in this way. However, the<br />

volatile compounds of these elements thermo-<br />

dynamically are not stable in the fbel salt. If the noble<br />

metals are not volatile, then some form of aerosol mist<br />

or spray is indicated. The relationship in this case<br />

between aerosol concentrations within the sampler<br />

shield, in the gas space above the violently agitated<br />

pump bowl liquid surfacet and in the shielded<br />

approaches to the off-gas exit from the pump bowl have<br />

not been established. IBowever,3 in the pump bowl<br />

proper, "the spray produced a mist of salt droplets,<br />

some of which drifted into the off-gas line at a rate of a<br />

few grams per month" (3.6 g/nionth is equal to ICY8 g<br />

of salt per cubic centimeter of off-gas flow). As we skd1<br />

see, in the samples taken during U operation, the<br />

quantity of gas-borne salt mist in our samples, though<br />

low, was higher than this.<br />

"Kr stripped/min -<br />

--,<br />

F<br />

' Kr produced/min F + X<br />

where X is the decay corrstant of 3.2-min 89Kr<br />

(0.2177 niin -I), F is the fraction of fuel volume<br />

that passes through the pump bowl per minute;<br />

for 50 gpm spray flow and 15 gpni fountain<br />

flow and a salt volume of 72 cu ft, F 4.121<br />

Thereby, F/'i(F+ X) = 0.357. At nominal full power of 8<br />

MW. and a fission yield of 4.79%: the rate of production<br />

of "Kr is 7.25 X BO1 atoms/min. Thus 2.59 X 10"<br />

atoms/min enter the pump bowl. Helium purge flow at<br />

the pump bowl temperature and pressure is 8370<br />

cc/min, so that the gases mix for a concentration of<br />

3.09 X 10' atoms of *'Kr per cubic centimeter. With<br />

'agas space-in the pump bowl of 54,400 cc, the average<br />

concentration in the well-mixed pump bowl is 1.28 X<br />

atoms of *' Kr per cubic centimeter. ?lie<br />

difference between this and the entrant concentration<br />

represents the "R'n and *9Sr produced in the pump<br />

bowl gas phase. Doubtless most of these atoms return<br />

to the salt.<br />

The observed concentration, 2.0 x loe3 atonis of<br />

" ~ r per cubic centimeter of capsule volume, is<br />

somewhat greater than the calculated average " Kr<br />

concentration in the pump bowl gas (maximum, 1.3 X<br />

atorn~of~~I(r per cubic centimeter of pump bowl<br />

gas). Possibly some of the "Rb and "Sr atoms from<br />

"Kr decay in the pump bowl remained gas-borne,<br />

entering with the sample. The concentration of "Sr<br />

in the fuel salt was about 1.2 X 1016 atondg.<br />

Thus all of the observed 89Sr activity in these<br />

gas samples corresponds to about 2 mg of fuel<br />

salt per cubic centimeter of gas. Howevert the 23567<br />

contents of these samples were 9, 23,and 25 pg 8.3 Double-Wall Freeze Valve Capsuk<br />

per 20-cc sample, and the salt contained about 15,088 A number of gas samples were taken during<br />

17<br />

pg of 2 3 5 ~ per gram, implying entrained fuel salt operation using the freeze-valve capsule, with capsule<br />

amounts of 0.03, 0.08, and 0.88 mg/cc. Very possibly, volume of 30 cc; results are shown in Table 8.3. These<br />

mists containing fuel salt could remain stable within extended across run 19. However, many aggressive acid<br />

the relatively tranquil sampler shield for a time suffi- leaches of the capsule were required to reduce external<br />

cient to accumulate on their surfaces much of the gasborne<br />

" RI~ and ' Sr and to enter the capsule with the<br />

activities to values assuredly below the contained<br />

sample, and sometimes leakage resulted. To relieve this<br />

sample gas.<br />

and also to provide a more certain fusible vacuum seal,


the double-walled capsule sampler shown in Fig. 8.2<br />

was employed. This device contained an evacuated<br />

copper vial with an 1 internal nozzle sealed by a soldered<br />

ball. The nozzle tip was inserted through and welded at<br />

the end to an outer capsule tip. A cap was welded to<br />

the top of the outer capsule. completeIy protecting the<br />

inner capsule from Contamination. In practice, after a<br />

sanaple obtained lasing this device was transferred to the<br />

High Radiation Level Analytical Laboratory, the tip was<br />

abraded to free the nozzle, and the upper cap was cut<br />

off, permitting the inner capsule to siide directly out<br />

into a clean container for dissolution without touching<br />

any contaminated objects. Usually the part of the<br />

nozzle projecting from the internal capsule was cut off<br />

and analpzed separately.<br />

Samples 19-77, 19-79. 20-9, 20-12,20-27, and 28-32,<br />

in addition, employed capsules in which a cap con-<br />

taining a metal felt filter (capable of retaining 100% of<br />

4-p particles) covered the nozzle tip. This served to<br />

reduce the amounts of the larger mist particles carried<br />

into the capsule.<br />

Data from all the gas samples taken during the 33 U<br />

operation are shown in TabIe 8.3. Reactor operating<br />

conditions which might affect samples are also shown.<br />

The data of Table 8.3 show the activity of the various<br />

nuclides in the entire capsule (including nozzle for<br />

71<br />

P\<br />

CUT FOR<br />

SAMPLE REMOVAL 7 f NICKEL OUTER TUBE<br />

ABRADE FOR<br />

SAMPLE REMOVAL<br />

BALL RETAINER<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-UWG 70-6758<br />

ALL WITH SOFT SOLDER SEAL<br />

COPPER NOZZLE TUBE<br />

Fig. 8.2. Double-wraBI sample capsule.<br />

doubie-walled capsules), divided by the capsule volume.<br />

Some attributes of a number of the samples are of<br />

interest.<br />

Samples 19-23, 19-37, and 19-56 were taken after the<br />

power had been lowered for several hours.<br />

Samples 19-79 and 20-32 were taken after reactor<br />

shutdown and drain. Some salt constituents and noble<br />

metals still remain reasonably strong, implying that the<br />

salt mist is fairly persistent.<br />

Sample 70 was taken “upside down”; strangely, it<br />

appeared to accumulate more salt-seeking elements.<br />

Samples 14-29, 19-64, and 19-73 were i6~~ntro19’<br />

samples: the internal no2zle sear, normally soldered,<br />

was instead a bored copper bar which did not open. So<br />

data are only from the nozzle tube, as no gas could<br />

enter the capsule.<br />

8.4 Effect of Mist<br />

As it was evident that dl samples tended tu have salt<br />

mist, daughters of noble gases. and relatively hi&<br />

proportions of noble metals in them, a variety of ways<br />

were examined to separate these and to determine<br />

which materials, if any, were truly gas-borne as opposed<br />

to being components of the mist. It was concluded that<br />

the lower part of the nozzle tube (external to the gas<br />

capsule proper, but within the containment capsule)<br />

would carry mostly mist-borne materials; some of these<br />

would continue to the part of the nozzle tube that<br />

extended into the internal capsule, and of course was<br />

included with it when dissolved for analysis. The<br />

amounts of salt in nozzle and capsule segments were<br />

estimated for each sample by calculating and averaging<br />

the amuunts of “inventory” salt indicated by the<br />

various salt- seeking nuclides.<br />

For all nuclides a gross value was obtained by<br />

summing nozzle and capsule total and dividing by<br />

capsule volume. The “net” value for a given nuclide was<br />

obtained by subtracting from the observed capsule<br />

value an mount of nozzle mist measured by the<br />

salt-seeking e~ements and nuclides contained in the<br />

capsule; the amount remaining was then divided by<br />

capsule volume.<br />

This was done for all gas samples taken at power<br />

during runs E9 and 20. The results are shown in Table<br />

8.1 expressed as fractions of MSRE production indi-<br />

cated by the samples to have been gas-borne. with gross<br />

values including. and net values exciuding, mist. Median<br />

values, which do not give undue importance to occa-<br />

sional high values, siiould represent the data best,<br />

though means are also shown.<br />

The median values indicate that only very slight net<br />

amounts of noble metaIs (the table indicates O6 Ru as a<br />

’&<br />


.


h<br />

07 0 e2 G a3 v,<br />

5<br />

9<br />

3<br />

g, 8<br />

c? 9t 1<br />

i c- c


E P<br />

w


Sample number<br />

Capsule volume, cc<br />

Date<br />

Megawatt-hours<br />

Power, MW<br />

Rpm<br />

Pump bowl level, %<br />

Overflow rate, Ib/hr<br />

Voids, 7%<br />

Flow rate of gas, std fiters/min<br />

Sample line purge<br />

Half-life Figdon yield<br />

amtope (bys) B %I<br />

SF-89 52.00 5.46<br />

Y-98 58.80 5.57<br />

&a-140 12.80 5.40<br />

C'S-I37 10958.00 6.58<br />

(*e-1 4 I 33.00 7.09<br />


Sample nwmber<br />

Capsule volume. cc<br />

Date<br />

hnegwat t-hours<br />

Power, MW<br />

b m<br />

Pump bowl Bevel, %<br />

Overflow rate, Ib/hr<br />

Voids, 70<br />

Flow rate of gas, std Biters/min<br />

Sample line purge<br />

Isotope<br />

Sr-89<br />

Y-9 1<br />

Ba-140<br />

cs-137<br />

Ce-14 1<br />

Ce-144<br />

Nd-147<br />

2-95<br />

I%-95<br />

h40-99<br />

Ru-103<br />

Ru-106<br />

Ag-B 11<br />

Sb-125<br />

Te-129m<br />

Te-132<br />

1-131<br />

Constituents<br />

u-233<br />

IBe<br />

Zr<br />

(day SB<br />

52.00<br />

58.80<br />

12.80<br />

1095 8 .OO<br />

33.00<br />

284.00<br />

11.10<br />

45.00<br />

35.00<br />

2.79<br />

39.60<br />

367.00<br />

4.50<br />

986.00<br />

34.00<br />

3.25<br />

8.05<br />

f%)<br />

5.46<br />

5.57<br />

5.40<br />

6.58<br />

7.09<br />

4.61<br />

1098<br />

4.05<br />

6.05<br />

4.80<br />

B .99<br />

0.43<br />

0.02<br />

0.08<br />

0.33<br />

4.40<br />

2.90<br />

FP19-I 3<br />

7.80<br />

8-21-69<br />

203 E 0 .O<br />

0.01<br />

1165<br />

63.25<br />

0.1<br />

0.38<br />

3.30 He<br />

OR<br />

5.49E6<br />

I28<br />

5.63B5<br />

12.676<br />

7.47E5<br />

139<br />

2.12ES<br />

6.631<br />

6.47B5<br />

13.213<br />

1.16F.4<br />

33.378<br />

4.33ES<br />

8.615<br />

22x7<br />

298<br />

B BE7<br />

105 3<br />

3.22E6<br />

613<br />

1.9286<br />

1238<br />

1 .os E6<br />

13462<br />

1.62ES<br />

1650<br />

0.001 2<br />

182<br />

0.221 8<br />

27,484<br />

0.001 5<br />

13.320<br />

FP19-14<br />

15 .00<br />

8-21-69<br />

203 10 .0<br />

0.01<br />

1165<br />

64.10<br />

0.1<br />

0.38<br />

3.30 Me<br />

On<br />

5.65E6<br />

132<br />

8.93E5<br />

20.166<br />

9.40B4<br />

52.222<br />

3.5086<br />

652<br />

1.37EQ<br />

43.187<br />

4.5 9 E6<br />

93.605<br />

3.09E6<br />

61.487<br />

4.27E7<br />

575<br />

6.1985<br />

6472<br />

1.26E7<br />

1104<br />

3.6OE6<br />

688<br />

2.57E6<br />

1662<br />

2.20EB<br />

24329<br />

2.07B5<br />

2113<br />

0.0004<br />

61.041<br />

0.001 1<br />

132<br />

0.0108<br />

93.504<br />

0.01 14<br />

171<br />

0.5253<br />

4540<br />

56<br />

FP19-15<br />

7.80<br />

8-2 1-69<br />

20310.0<br />

0.01<br />

1165<br />

63.34<br />

0.1<br />

0.38<br />

3.30 He<br />

On<br />

2.68E7<br />

628<br />

3.12E6<br />

70.644<br />

1.55B5<br />

87.151<br />

2.00E6<br />

472<br />

2.6386<br />

51 529<br />

3.49B6<br />

71.167<br />

4.21E4<br />

B 24<br />

2.27B6<br />

45.385<br />

2.42E8<br />

3270<br />

1.82E4<br />

18482<br />

3.28E7<br />

2910<br />

9.65E6<br />

1845<br />

1.05E6<br />

26311<br />

7.92E6<br />

5160<br />

4.49E6<br />

53997<br />

4.83E5<br />

4957<br />

Sdt crmrtituentsb<br />

FP19-16<br />

15.00<br />

8-2 1-69<br />

20410.0<br />

0.01<br />

1165<br />

65.75<br />

0.1<br />

0.38<br />

3.30 ~e<br />

OR<br />

7.87E6<br />

185<br />

4.48E5<br />

10.159<br />

3.35B5<br />

I89<br />

1.63F.6<br />

304<br />

3.4XE6<br />

110<br />

8.13E6<br />

166<br />

1.20E5<br />

356<br />

5.13B6<br />

103<br />

3.h8E7<br />

429<br />

8.4QE.5<br />

8317<br />

5.96E6<br />

529<br />

2.47E6<br />

280<br />

8.07E4<br />

30 I<br />

3.07E6<br />

2008<br />

3.40E6<br />

43478<br />

4.98E5<br />

5108<br />

0.0007 0.001 1<br />

91.398 B 66<br />

0.0010<br />

I24<br />

0.0064 0.0143<br />

55.500 127<br />

0.001 I Q.0096<br />

16.889 144<br />

FPIS-19<br />

7.80<br />

94-69<br />

21557.0<br />

5.50<br />

1100<br />

62.00<br />

1 .5<br />

0.50<br />

2.40 AP<br />

Off<br />

2.9487<br />

569<br />

1.27E6<br />

25.158<br />

1.58B6<br />

33.409<br />

3.04E7<br />

5565<br />

1.45E5<br />

2.739<br />

5.22ES<br />

10.457<br />

3.35E5<br />

17.799<br />

4.64E5<br />

8.141<br />

1.33E7<br />

192<br />

1.64E8<br />

2075<br />

9.74E6<br />

616<br />

8.2IE5<br />

155<br />

1.46E5<br />

2637<br />

2.04E4<br />

73.063<br />

2.9BE6<br />

1142<br />

1 .ME8<br />

1518<br />

3.59E7<br />

1088<br />

0.0002<br />

25.894<br />

c.oom<br />

953x1<br />

0.0009<br />

13.435<br />

FP19-20<br />

15 .OO<br />

9469<br />

2 B 587 .O<br />

5 .so<br />

1100<br />

60.20<br />

1.5<br />

0.50<br />

2.40 Ar<br />

Off<br />

2.28%<br />

43.931<br />

6.61E5<br />

13.044<br />

4.99E5<br />

10.346<br />

3.65B6<br />

668<br />

1.19E5<br />

2.222<br />

6.12ES<br />

12.265<br />

1.3985<br />

7.222<br />

3.43E5<br />

6.012<br />

1.73B6<br />

24.916<br />

1.16E8<br />

1432<br />

4.84%<br />

304<br />

6.67E.5<br />

226<br />

1.76B5<br />

609<br />

1.41E6<br />

563<br />

9.9387<br />

1385<br />

5.8987<br />

1749<br />

0.0001<br />

13.166<br />

0.0006<br />

94.349<br />

U.0018<br />

26.946<br />

FP19-23<br />

15.00<br />

9-1049<br />

22255.0<br />

0.01<br />

1165<br />

66.40<br />

6.8<br />

0.70<br />

2.40 ar<br />

Off<br />

4.65E6<br />

81.348<br />

3.43E6<br />

61.751<br />

8.20E4<br />

B 26<br />

1.37E7<br />

2480<br />

4.00E6<br />

46.8(12<br />

4.59E6<br />

90.646<br />

1.29F6<br />

46.615<br />

2.09E6<br />

34.261<br />

8.53E6<br />

125<br />

1.68E8<br />

1900<br />

5.9587<br />

3221<br />

5.44E6<br />

I022<br />

1.99B5<br />

537<br />

2.29E6<br />

966<br />

6.3 1 E7<br />

782<br />

1.01E8<br />

2314<br />

0.0m5<br />

91.215<br />

0.001 3<br />

165<br />

0.0035<br />

30.014<br />

0.0025<br />

36.926<br />

"P19-28<br />

15.00<br />

9-23-69<br />

23434.0<br />

5.50<br />

1188<br />

67.00<br />

7.5<br />

0.53<br />

2.40 Efe<br />

Off<br />

9.07E-7<br />

B430<br />

7.6785<br />

12.757<br />

3.28%<br />

41.677<br />

1.O1E6<br />

180<br />

2.16E5<br />

2.809<br />

2.36B5<br />

4.600<br />

2.lIC5<br />

6.945<br />

B .38E5<br />

2.088<br />

4.09E9<br />

608<br />

2.08E9<br />

22584<br />

6.87E7<br />

3228<br />

3.29E4<br />

613<br />

24x6<br />

6092<br />

1.4987<br />

4183<br />

6.65E8<br />

$018<br />

1.22E8<br />

2498<br />

0.0000<br />

6.284<br />

0.0030<br />

25.894<br />

0.001 2<br />

13.964


Sample number<br />

capsule volume, cc<br />

Wee<br />

Megawatt-hours<br />

Power, MW<br />

RPrn<br />

Pump bawl level, lo<br />

@erflow rate. iblhr<br />

Voids, %<br />

mow Faate of Bas, std liters/ ‘train<br />

$ample line pusge<br />

Sr-89<br />

Y-9 f<br />

h-140<br />

cs-137<br />

Ce-141<br />

Ce-144<br />

Kd-147<br />

Zr-95<br />

Nd-95<br />

Ma-99<br />

Ru-I03<br />

wu-106<br />

Ag-11 1<br />

Te-129M<br />

Te-132<br />

L13f<br />

Constibment<br />

u-233<br />

kl-total<br />

Li<br />

Be<br />

52.00 5.46<br />

58.80 5.57<br />

12.80 5.40<br />

10958.06) 6.58<br />

33.00<br />

284.00<br />

11.10<br />

65.00<br />

35.00<br />

2.79<br />

39.60<br />

367.00<br />

7.50<br />

34.00<br />

3.25<br />

8.05<br />

7.09<br />

4.61<br />

1.98<br />

6.05<br />

4.05<br />

4.80<br />

1.99<br />

0.43<br />

0.02<br />

0.33<br />

4.40<br />

2.90<br />

FPI9-29<br />

7.80<br />

9-23-69<br />

23458.0<br />

5.50<br />

1188<br />

64.00<br />

3.9<br />

0.53<br />

2.40 He<br />

Off<br />

7.23E6<br />

114<br />

8.71E5<br />

14.436<br />

1.8SE6<br />

23.177<br />

7.1385<br />

128<br />

5.29E5<br />

6.859<br />

9.36E5<br />

18.244<br />

2.8585<br />

9.362<br />

3.63E5<br />

9.481<br />

5.95E6<br />

88.787<br />

3.17E8<br />

3409<br />

1.7787<br />

825<br />

1.15E6<br />

2% 3<br />

7.5 1 E5<br />

1841<br />

I .05 E7<br />

2922<br />

5.5188<br />

6594<br />

1.56E8<br />

3218<br />

0.0002<br />

28.388<br />

0.0005<br />

4.440<br />

0.0010<br />

15.354<br />

FP19-34<br />

15 .OO<br />

9-30-69<br />

23936.0<br />

0.01<br />

611<br />

64.60<br />

0.5<br />

0.06)<br />

2.45 He<br />

Off<br />

7.67B6<br />

119<br />

4.68E5<br />

7.635<br />

5.1985<br />

6.745<br />

6.03E6<br />

1072<br />

1.90E5<br />

2.402<br />

9.07E5<br />

17.639<br />

8.00E4<br />

2.749<br />

1.63E4<br />

24.315<br />

4.1 387<br />

619<br />

5.8888<br />

7332<br />

3.9587<br />

1803<br />

3.55%<br />

660<br />

7.2QE5<br />

1930<br />

1237<br />

3436<br />

1.47B8<br />

2026<br />

2.77E8<br />

6190<br />

0.0002<br />

35.907<br />

0.0008<br />

11.976<br />

5’7<br />

FP19-38<br />

15.00<br />

161-Id?<br />

24025.0<br />

5.50<br />

610<br />

60.80<br />

0.9<br />

0.00<br />

2.40 lie<br />

Off Off<br />

FP1941<br />

15.00<br />

10-369<br />

24352.0<br />

7 .00<br />

1175<br />

64.00<br />

4.3<br />

0.53<br />

2.40 He<br />

Fission product isotope@<br />

2.40B7<br />

369<br />

3.65E4<br />

0.591<br />

6.5 8E5<br />

8.361<br />

3.ME5<br />

53.996<br />

2.9f F3<br />

0.036<br />

1.31E4<br />

0.254<br />

2.5184<br />

0.372<br />

4.1485<br />

6.238<br />

2.19E7<br />

25 7<br />

2.97E6<br />

134<br />

B.97E5<br />

36.589<br />

3.22B5<br />

836<br />

1 0lEA<br />

242<br />

2.11E7<br />

355<br />

2.3387<br />

506<br />

6.29B6<br />

92.451<br />

3.55E5<br />

5.568<br />

1.21E6<br />

13.870<br />

1.69B6<br />

299<br />

1.85E5<br />

2.165<br />

2.64E5<br />

5.071<br />

9.27E;B<br />

2.791<br />

3.44B5<br />

4.976<br />

3.29B7<br />

49 I<br />

6.93E8<br />

6420<br />

8.07EB<br />

344<br />

2.45E6<br />

453<br />

7.B3E5<br />

1621<br />

1.24E7<br />

3128<br />

4.46E8<br />

4660<br />

7.60E7<br />

1450<br />

0.0000 0.0001<br />

2.693 10.074<br />

0.0009<br />

116<br />

0.0017 0.0014<br />

25.948 20.958<br />

FPB946<br />

15 .00<br />

10-769<br />

25153.0<br />

8.00<br />

1176<br />

63.80<br />

5.8<br />

0.53<br />

3.30 He<br />

Off<br />

1.51E8<br />

2001<br />

4.67%<br />

66.858<br />

1.33B7<br />

123<br />

2.03E6<br />

354<br />

3.53E.6<br />

35.582<br />

2.25E6<br />

42.310<br />

1.41E6<br />

33.733<br />

1.91%<br />

25.175<br />

2.47E7<br />

367<br />

9.53E.8<br />

6356<br />

5.7987<br />

21 65<br />

3.25B6<br />

592<br />

5.OIE6<br />

8749<br />

4.63E-l<br />

10109<br />

2.48E9<br />

18644<br />

1.9588<br />

2580<br />

0.0004<br />

54.857<br />

0.0039<br />

484<br />

0.0046,<br />

39.458<br />

0.001 7<br />

25.948<br />

PP19-54<br />

15 .00<br />

10-1449<br />

26601 .O<br />

8.00<br />

1185<br />

67.05<br />

8.3<br />

0.53<br />

3.30 Be<br />

Off<br />

2.6986<br />

30.537<br />

1.6585<br />

2.038<br />

1.64B5<br />

1.188<br />

5.59E.5<br />

95.991<br />

1.19E.5<br />

0.973<br />

2.79E5<br />

5.054<br />

1.00E4<br />

1.318<br />

1.37B5<br />

1.575<br />

2.8386<br />

40.848<br />

2.81E7<br />

162<br />

5.56E6<br />

143<br />

l.BSE6<br />

204<br />

8.47E4<br />

116<br />

9.0785<br />

161<br />

3.61E6<br />

23.015<br />

1.2186<br />

14.092<br />

0.0000<br />

6.882<br />

0.0006<br />

8.982<br />

PPI9-56<br />

15 .0Q<br />

10-15-69<br />

26821.0<br />

0.01<br />

1185<br />

66.05<br />

7 .o<br />

0.53<br />

3.35 He<br />

Off<br />

1 llE6<br />

12.310<br />

2.99E5<br />

3.628<br />

5.69E.5<br />

4.067<br />

4.3585<br />

74.429<br />

3.8BE5<br />

3.045<br />

2.47E5<br />

4.465<br />

2.35E5<br />

4.346<br />

1 .@E5<br />

1.910<br />

3.74E.6<br />

53.736<br />

l.tllE8<br />

1063<br />

7.13EB<br />

21 7<br />

4.35E5<br />

77.01 7<br />

102E5<br />

139<br />

2.77B6<br />

483<br />

8.53E7<br />

554<br />

8.93B6<br />

1D 3<br />

0.000<br />

4.987<br />

0.0028<br />

41.916<br />

FBI942<br />

I! 5.00<br />

10-22-69<br />

28673.0<br />

8.00<br />

I186<br />

63.60<br />

3.9<br />

0.53<br />

3.30 He<br />

Off<br />

2.56E7<br />

259<br />

4.61ES<br />

5.104<br />

1.91E6<br />

12.544<br />

4.73&6<br />

498<br />

2.55B5<br />

1.837<br />

I.54E5<br />

2.402<br />

1.93E5<br />

3.328<br />

9.07E4<br />

0.943<br />

3.40%<br />

46.894<br />

1.51E8<br />

928<br />

6.87B6<br />

188<br />

4.08E5<br />

70.941<br />

1.57B5<br />

205<br />

3.63E6<br />

546<br />

1.77E8<br />

1190<br />

B.77E7<br />

194<br />

0.0000<br />

5.187<br />

0.0079<br />

68.687<br />

0.001 B<br />

15.968


Sample number<br />

Capsule volume, cc<br />

Date<br />

[alegawa tt-hours<br />

PoweF, MW<br />

Rpm<br />

Pump bowl level. %<br />

Overflow rate, b/hr<br />

Voids, %<br />

How rate of gs, std iiterq'min<br />

Sample line purge<br />

Wf'4ife Fission yield<br />

Bmtope (days) d 70)<br />

Ss-89 52.00 5.46<br />

11-91 58.80 5.57<br />

Ba-140 12.80 5.40<br />

CS-B 39 10958.00 6.58<br />

Ce-141 33.00 7.09<br />

cc-144 2R4.00 4.68<br />

Nd-147 I1.IID 1.9X<br />

Zr95 65.0(1 6.05<br />

Nb-95 35.00 6.05<br />

MU-99 2.49 4.80<br />

WU-103 39.60 1.99<br />

~~-106 367.00 0.43<br />

Ap-Ill 7.50 0.02<br />

le-129111 34.00 0.33<br />

Te-132 3.25 4.40<br />

1-131 8.05 2.90<br />

Constituent<br />

U-233<br />

&I-total<br />

Li<br />

Be<br />

FPBSa-64<br />

7.80<br />

10-22-49<br />

281 82.0<br />

8.00<br />

1188<br />

63.00<br />

3.4<br />

0.53<br />

3.30 We<br />

OFF<br />

4.27E6<br />

42.821<br />

1.92E5<br />

2.i 86<br />

I .388.:6<br />

9.050<br />

2.8286<br />

475<br />

2.41 1'5<br />

1.919<br />

I .64liS<br />

2.874<br />

I .901:5<br />

3.243<br />

2.2418.5<br />

2.3L8<br />

I .67 1.6<br />

22.825<br />

8.46B7<br />

516<br />

2.96E6<br />

80.203<br />

2.66085<br />

34.775<br />

3.46B5<br />

45 1<br />

1.2887<br />

1984<br />

7.65E8<br />

5103<br />

6.23E7<br />

678<br />

0.0001<br />

10.358<br />

0.0154<br />

I33<br />

0.0023<br />

34.546<br />

K'P19-65<br />

15 .00<br />

10-23-69<br />

28299.0<br />

x.oo<br />

1185<br />

63.40<br />

4.0<br />

0.53<br />

3.25 He<br />

Qff<br />

4.86E7<br />

481<br />

6.80E5<br />

7.424<br />

4.86E6<br />

31.558<br />

1.5386<br />

25 8<br />

1.3483<br />

0.097<br />

E .44 E4<br />

0.256<br />

I .8 I 1


SOY OWS9 S6-JZ<br />

sO-9 OQSE S6-(MI<br />

n<br />

330<br />

aII OE'E<br />

ES'Q<br />

9'P<br />

OVZ9<br />

881T<br />

00'8<br />

O'ZTZIE<br />

69-1-11<br />

WE1<br />

6-0Zdd<br />

PL91<br />

8JIP'I<br />

TIBL'PI<br />

9861'1<br />

PLZ.1<br />

$360'1<br />

IE8'P<br />

S3IL'Z<br />

ZSV0<br />

tr3SL.P<br />

92 1<br />

SJ89'L<br />

918'06<br />

9396'9<br />

€SI<br />

S319'8<br />

€26' YZ<br />

S8QV9<br />

6ZL.09<br />

S386'2<br />

SBSZ'P<br />

ILO.9<br />

0000'0<br />

JJO<br />

aH 0E.E<br />

ES'O<br />

E'I<br />

08'6s<br />

8811<br />

00'8<br />

939L.Z<br />

9EI<br />

L3IS.I<br />

IT!<br />

sa 193<br />

zt'L9<br />

936P'Z<br />

6K89<br />

S598'E<br />

E81<br />

936)'s<br />

t P6<br />

83ZZ.T<br />

PLE'ZL<br />

93E8.S<br />

SIS'E<br />

S3S0'E<br />

880'9<br />

S3EP'E<br />

S8L.0<br />

P38V8<br />

Z8E'OO<br />

S36E.S<br />

SI6'IE<br />

93 S9'Z<br />

9L9'9<br />

S39E.S<br />

LPL<br />

LJEP'9<br />

LTI<br />

6000'0<br />

KVS<br />

0000'0<br />

JJO 3JO<br />

aH QE'E 3H QE't<br />

00' 0 OS'O<br />

0'0 0'2<br />

00'0 OS19<br />

0811 06 1 I<br />

00'0 00'8<br />

La69 1 LBOS'Z<br />

ILVZ9 8P6E<br />

YZE6'8 8899's<br />

9E 1 ZI9t<br />

SBEE'8 L3SI'Z<br />

L8p'LZ 986<br />

VZQL'I SZI3<br />

S86)'SP OOE'SS<br />

S3EYZ SBIZ'E<br />

IT1 081<br />

9366'E 9562'9<br />

PLE 8L6<br />

1316'S 83LSI<br />

826'8s 966'18<br />

93L8'P 9FIEL.9<br />

ZOZ'E 6tf6'6r<br />

S39I.E SPOL'P<br />

9EZ.P ZL8.P<br />

S36VZ SBPB'Z<br />

ILVZ LL6'1<br />

SB6Z.E SBSS'Z<br />

OS1 EBO'OL<br />

SXEE.6 S3SE.P<br />

LIL'E Z99'9t<br />

SSSY't, 93EE'P<br />

E W E I SZ<br />

SXSS'E L39Z.Z<br />

L96)'PI ELL<br />

9319'1 L3tS'L


61<br />

Fig. 9.2. Surveillance specimen stringer.<br />

Fig. 9.3. Stringer containment.<br />

PHOTO 8167!<br />

SWBE TUBE


within the basket along the specimens, no detailed flow<br />

analysis has been presented, but quite likely the flow<br />

may have been barely turbulent, because of entrance<br />

effects which persisted or recurred along the flow<br />

channel.<br />

The first two times that the surveillance assemblies<br />

were removed from the MSRE (after runs 7 and 1 1) for<br />

fission product examinations, metal samples were ob-<br />

tained by cutting the perforated cylindrical Nastelhy N<br />

basket that held the assembly. The next two times<br />

(after ruiis 14 and 181, '/'-in. tubing that had held<br />

dosimeter wires was cut up to provide samples. When<br />

the tubing was first used, lower values were obtained<br />

(after run 11) for the deposition of fission products.<br />

After run I& the basket was no longer of use and was<br />

cut up to see if differences in deposition were due to<br />

differences in type of sample.<br />

The distribution of temperatures and of neutron<br />

fluxes aiong the graphite sample assembly were esti-<br />

mated2 for a I] operatiorr (Fig. 9.5). The temperature<br />

of the graphite was generally 8 10 10°F greater than<br />

that of the adjacent fuel, normally which entered the<br />

channel at about 1180°F and emerged at 1210°F. The<br />

thermal-neutron flux at the center was about 4.5 X<br />

1013 with a fast flux of 11 these values<br />

declined to about one-third or one-fourth of the peak at<br />

the ends of the rig.<br />

62<br />

Fig. 9.4. Stringer assembly.<br />

itmi<br />

It was found on removal of the assembly after run 7<br />

that mechanical distortion of the stringer bundle with<br />

specimen breakage had occurred, apparently because<br />

tolerance to thermal expansion had been reduced by<br />

salt frozen between ends of consecutive graphite speci-<br />

mens. The entire assembly was thereby replaced, with<br />

slight modifications to design; this design was used<br />

without further difficulty until the end of run 18.<br />

After the termination of a particular period of reactor<br />

operation, draining of fuel salt, and circulation and<br />

draining of flush salt (except after run 18, when no<br />

flush was used), the core access port at the top of the<br />

reactor vessei was opened, and the cylindrical basket<br />

containing the stringer assemblies was removed, placed<br />

in a sealed shielded carrier, and transported to the<br />

segmenting cell of the High Radiation Level Exaniina-<br />

tion facilities. Here the stringer assembly was removed,<br />

and one or more stringers were disassembled, being<br />

replaced by a fresh stringer assembly. Graphite bars<br />

from different regions of the stringer were marked on<br />

one face and set aside for fission product examination.<br />

Stringers replaced after runs 11 and 14 contained<br />

graphite bars made from modified and experimental<br />

grades ~f graphite in addition to that obtained directly<br />

from MSRE core bars (type CGB). After runs 7 and 1 I,<br />

6 -in. rings of the cylindrical 2-in. containment basket<br />

were cut from top, middle, and bottom regions for<br />

. ..


.. . i.;.; ..... &. -:<br />

fission product anaIysis. Samples of the perforated<br />

Hastelloy N rings were weighed and dissolved. A similar<br />

approach was used after run 18.<br />

After runs 14 and 18, seven sections of the ‘4-h.-<br />

diam (0.820-in.-wall) HasteIloy N tube containing the<br />

flux monitor wire, which was attached along one<br />

stringer, were obtained, extending from the top to the<br />

bottom of the core. These were dissolved for fission<br />

product analysis. This tube was necessarily subjected to<br />

about the same flow conditions as the adjacent graphite<br />

specimens. The flow was doubtless less turbulent than<br />

that existing on the outside of the cylindrical contain-<br />

ment basket.<br />

For the graphite specimens removed at the end of<br />

runs 7, 11, 14, and 18, the bars were first sectioned<br />

transversely with a thin carborundum saw to provide<br />

specimens for photographic, metallographic, autoradio-<br />

graphic, x-radiographic, and surface x-ray examination.<br />

The remainders of the bars - 4 in. Bong for the middle<br />

specimen, 2’4 to 3 in. for the end specimens - were<br />

used for milling off successive surface layers for fission<br />

product deposition studies.<br />

A ”planer” was constructed by the Hot Cell Opera-<br />

tions group for milling thin layers from the four long<br />

surfaces of each of the graphite bars. The cutter and<br />

collection system were so designed that the major part<br />

of the graphite dust removed was collected. By cum-<br />

63<br />

paring the collected weights of samples with the initial<br />

and final diaensions of the bars and their known<br />

densities, sampling losses of 4.5%> and 9.1%<br />

were indicated for the top, middle, and bottom bars of<br />

the first specimen array so examined.<br />

The pattern of‘ sampling graphite layers shown in Fig.<br />

9.6 was designed to niinimize cross contamination<br />

between cuts. The identifying groove was made on the<br />

graphite face pressed against graphite from another<br />

stringer in the bundle and not exposed to flowing salt.<br />

After each cut the surfaces were vacuumed to minimize<br />

cross contamination between samples. The powdered<br />

samples were placed in capped plastic vials arid weighed.<br />

The depth of cut mostly was obtained from sample<br />

weights, though checked (satisfactorily) on the middle<br />

bar by micrometer measurements. In this way it was<br />

possible to obtain both a “pprofiile” of the activity of a<br />

nuclide at various depths within the graphite and also,<br />

by appropriate surnrnation, to determine the total<br />

deposit activity related to one square centimeter of<br />

(superficial) graphite sample surface. Tbie profiles and<br />

the total deposit intensity values, though originating in<br />

the same measurements, are rriost conveniently dis-<br />

cussed separately.<br />

9.8.2 Relative deposit intensity. En order to compare<br />

the intensity of fission product deposition under<br />

various circumstances, we generally have first obtained<br />

0 (0 20 38 46 50 6Q 70 80<br />

DISTANCE ABOVE BOTTOM OF HORIZONTAL GRAPHITE GRID (In 1<br />

Fig. 9.5. Neudacn flux and temperature profiles foop COB^ s~~eilhrpce assembly.


--- -<br />

62<br />

60<br />

58<br />

CIA<br />

I<br />

64<br />

, -IDENTIFYING GROOVE<br />

,"<br />

066C in - - -<br />

--d.<br />

Fig. 9.6. Scheme for milling graphite samples.<br />

ORhL- BWG 66- 11 378<br />

TGP FRAPdlTE<br />

MIDQLE GRAPHITE<br />

BDTTOM GRAPH1 TE


the observed activity of the nuclide in question per unit<br />

of specimen surface (observed disintegrations per<br />

minute per square centimeter). For the same time, rhe<br />

MSRE inventory activity was obtained and dividied by<br />

the total MSWE area (metal, 0.79 X lo6 cm2 ; graphite<br />

channels, edges, ends, and lattice bars, 2.25 X lo6 em2,<br />

for a total of 3.04 x cm2>? giving an inventory<br />

value (disintegrations per minute per square centimeter)<br />

that would result if the nuclide deposited evenly on all<br />

surfaces. The ratio of observed to inventory disintegrations<br />

per minute per square centimeter then yields a<br />

relative deposit intensity which may be tabulated along<br />

with the inventory disintegrations per minute per<br />

square centimeter.<br />

The relative deposit intensities, of course, will average<br />

between 0 and 1.0 when summed over all areas,<br />

indicating the average fraction of inventory deposited<br />

on the reactor surface. The values may be compared<br />

freely between runs, nuclides, regions, kinds of surfaces,<br />

and qualities of flow. The fraction of the total<br />

inventory estimated to be deposited on a particular<br />

surface domain is the product of the relative deposit<br />

intensity attributed to it and the fraction of the total<br />

area it represents. In particular, all the metal of the<br />

system represents 26% of the tutal area, graphite edges<br />

a similar amount, and flow channels (and lattice bars)<br />

about 48%.<br />

Results of the examination of metal and graphite<br />

samples from surveillance arrays removed after runs 7,<br />

1 It 14, and 18 are shown, respectively, in Tables 9.1,<br />

9.2, 9.3, and 9.4: expressed in each case as relative<br />

deposit intensities.<br />

For each sample set the metal specimens are listed<br />

from the reactor top tu the bottom, followed by<br />

graphite specimens. The nuclides with noble-gas precursors<br />

are followed by the salt-seeking isotopes,<br />

followed by noble metals and ending with tellurium and<br />

iodine.<br />

A number of generalizations of interest may be noted.<br />

As a base line, in the absence of minute salt particles<br />

which might have come with a sample, recoils from<br />

fission in adjacent salt should give a relative deposit<br />

intensity of 0.001 to 0.003. The salt-seeking elements<br />

(Ce, Nb, Zr) on both metal and graphite and the<br />

elements with noble-gas precursors (Sr, Y, Ba, Cs) on<br />

metal specimens do show such levels of values: even<br />

generally being higher near the core midplane, consistent<br />

with the higher flux.<br />

For graphite, the elements with noble-gas daughters<br />

have some tendency to diffuse into the graphite in the<br />

form of their short-lived noble-gas precursor. Thus the<br />

values for 89Sr are mostly in the 0.10~-0.20 range,<br />

6 5<br />

indicating that appreciablc entry has indeed taken<br />

piace. Values for 14'Ba arid 91Y are an order of<br />

magnitude lower, consistent with noble-gas precursors<br />

of much shorter half-life; their values are still about an<br />

order of magnitude ,zbove those of the salt-seeking<br />

elements. On specimens of pyrolytic graphite, which<br />

had appreciably less internal porosity, the entry perpen-<br />

dicular to the graphite planes was less than that where<br />

the edges of the planes faced the salt; both directions<br />

were lower than CGB graphite. The data for 7Cs were<br />

more than an order of magnitude lower than for<br />

strontium ~ though the half-lives of the noble-gas pre-<br />

cursors were similar (3.18 niin for "Kr and 3.9 min for<br />

137 Xe). The inventory data used in the tabulation were<br />

for all material built up since first power operation;<br />

such an inventory is severalfold too high fur the later<br />

runs in cases such as this where transport rather than<br />

salt accumulation is important. However, inventory<br />

adjustment is not sufficient to account for the low<br />

levels of 'Cs values. Appreciable diffusion of cesium<br />

from the graphite, as discussed later, appears to account<br />

for the iow values.<br />

The noble meials (Nb, Mo, Ru, Ag, Sb, Te) as a group<br />

exhibited deposits relatively more intense than other<br />

groups on graphite and even more intense deposits on<br />

metal, where the relative intensities on various samples<br />

approached or exceeded 1 and were in practically all<br />

cases above 0.1. Significant percentages of the noble<br />

metals appear to have been deposited on system<br />

surfaces.<br />

Generally the deposit intensities on the 2-in.-OD<br />

perforated container cylinder (after runs 7, I 1, arid 18)<br />

were higher than on the 1/8-in.-OD flux monitor tube,<br />

which was attached to a stringer within the container.<br />

Flow was turbulent around the container cylinders but<br />

was less turbulent and may have been laminar along the<br />

internal tube.<br />

The most intensely deposited elements appear to have<br />

been tellurium, antimony, and silver; on the container<br />

cylinder the relative deposit intensities were mostly<br />

above 1. The deposit intensities for flux monitor tubes<br />

were at least severalfold greater than for graphite, which<br />

should have had similar flow, so that we can conclude<br />

that these elements had definitely more tendency to<br />

deposit on metal than on graphite under comparable<br />

conditions.<br />

To a degree only slightly less intense, molybdenum<br />

exhibited similar behavior to that described above.<br />

Niobium appeared to have deposited with roughly<br />

similar intensities on graphite and metal; deposition<br />

became somewhat less intense and varied proportion-


wP-0<br />

Y T t<br />

000<br />

WCdO<br />

-119<br />

0823<br />

d<br />

0<br />

0<br />

9<br />

0<br />

r-<br />

c<br />

e:<br />

8<br />

0<br />

-6- s<br />

0<br />

5<br />

0<br />

0<br />

c<br />

8 0<br />

v<br />

v)<br />

8<br />

d<br />

Q<br />

8 8<br />

m<br />

3<br />

2<br />

8 8<br />

5<br />

d<br />

r-t-rmmm<br />

000<br />

699<br />

800<br />

mmwm<br />

-??-!e:<br />

0800<br />

oc<br />

3<br />

c<br />

2<br />

0 6<br />

0 2<br />

Oddd<br />

m<br />

0<br />

2<br />

d<br />

88 8<br />

8 D N m<br />

00 0<br />

d,<br />

d<br />

m w<br />

m<br />

0<br />

8 0<br />

e: c<br />

0 0


I'0 LSO'O 090'0 9 1'0 1 E'O E 100'0<br />

BLO'O PLO'O 9L0'0 12'0 OP'O 9100'0<br />

11.0 680'0 650'0 er.0 EE'Q 1 T00'0<br />

82.0 P90'0 9E 1'0 LE'O 09.0 S 100'0<br />

LI'O sio'o E80.0 9E'O €6'0 LIOQ"0<br />

PE'O LYT'O 6SI'Q t E'O O'Z 8E00.0<br />

91'0 590'0 6S0.0 ET'O 91'0 s 100'0<br />

L1'0 8100 PLUO ZE'O L8'0 8100'0<br />

EtO'O Z. s<br />

5' 1<br />

LZO'O 9' 1<br />

EEO'O P'P


N+-I + N W<br />

w Q \e 4" w 0<br />

Q 01<br />

I + +<br />

0000000<br />

$39 00 00 8 0 08 op 0 pp pp pp pp<br />

cy CC CC C E CC C r id OP 00 +-I- c+-<br />

VlM N C Q o m VI m 0P NO w w 0 "0 Wcd 13.P<br />

" W<br />

0 0 0 0 0 0 6<br />

0<br />

Q<br />

N 8<br />

0 0<br />

M<br />

b<br />

s a<br />

53<br />

m<br />

c<br />

W R<br />

4 P<br />

E .


,.:. . <br />

\. . ii . 4<br />

,z.:c.p<br />

fA<br />

%<br />

E .e<br />

U<br />

e<br />

u2<br />

m<br />

Lr,<br />

€56 64 Cd de; d e: dd 66 di 66 de;<br />

aa-<br />

22 zz 88<br />

a0 00<br />

eo 00<br />

do de; dd<br />

00<br />

80<br />

2<br />

2<br />

E<br />

m ec m PI 0 r- .-<br />

YT.gYto-?B!<br />

0000088


factor related to the permanent adherence of deposited<br />

material to a given surface, the so-called “sticlting<br />

factor,” is included. usually followed by the assumption<br />

that for lack of data it will be assumed that all metal<br />

and graphite surfaces have equal kalues of unity -<br />

whatever hits, sticks and stays.<br />

9.2 Find Assembly<br />

9.2.1 Design. The final surveillance specimen array,<br />

inserted after run 18 and removed after run 20, was of a<br />

different design’ 4 from those previously used, in order<br />

to include capsules containing substantial quantities of<br />

2 3 3 ~<br />

and other isotopes to determine accurately their<br />

neutron capture characteristics in the MSRE spectrum.<br />

The cylindrical geometry permitted the inclusion of a<br />

surveillance array consisting of sets of paired metal and<br />

graphite specimens with differing axial positions, sur-<br />

face roughness, and adjacent flow velocities. Because<br />

flow conditions were the same or essentially so for<br />

metal-graphite pairs, the hydrodynamically controlled<br />

mass transport effects, if simple, should cancel in<br />

comparisons, and differences can be attributed to<br />

differences in what is commonly called sticking factor.<br />

The sample pairs are discussed below in order of<br />

increasing turbulence.<br />

A photograph of the final surveillance specimen<br />

assembly is shown in Fig. 9.7. The individual specimens<br />

and the flow associated with them will be considered<br />

next.<br />

9.2.2 Specimens and flow. In the noncentral regions<br />

of the core, the flow to a fuel channel had to pass<br />

WASTELLOV Al BASKET<br />

/<br />

70<br />

through the grid of lattice bars, and according<br />

measurements reported’ y6 on models, the velocity<br />

the channels was 0.7 fps with a Reynolds number<br />

to<br />

in<br />

of<br />

1000. However, the flow varied with the square root of<br />

head loss, implying that nonlarninar entrance conditions<br />

extended over much of these channels.<br />

The lattice bars did not extend across the central<br />

region. The flow through central fuel channels was<br />

indicated by model studies to be 3.7 gpm, equivalent to<br />

2.66 fps, or a Reynolds number of 3700; the associated<br />

liead loss dine to turbulent flow can thus be calculated<br />

as 0.45 ft. In this region were also the circular channels<br />

for rod thimbles and surveillance specimens; the same<br />

driving force across the 2.6- to 2.0-in. annulus yields a<br />

velocity of 2.6 fps and a Reynolds number of 3460.<br />

These flows are clearly turbulent.<br />

Flow in the circular annulus around the surveillance<br />

specimen basket essentially controlled the pressure<br />

drops driving the more restricted flows around and<br />

through various specimens within the basket.<br />

At the bottom of the basket cage was a hollow<br />

graphite cylinder (No. 7-3, Table 9.5) with a l’t’8-in~<br />

outside diameter and a ’&-in. inside diameter, contain-<br />

ing a ‘h-in.-OD Hastelloy N closed cylinder (No. 7-1,<br />

Table 9.6). The velocity in the annulus was estimated as<br />

0.27 fps, with an associated Reynolds number of<br />

DVp/p = 0.0104 X 0.27 X 141/0.00528 = 75; this flow<br />

was, therefore, clearly laminar. This value was obtained<br />

by considering flow through three resistances in series -<br />

respectively, 20 holes in parallel, in. m diameter, ‘4<br />

in. long; then 6 holes in parallel, ‘4 in. in diameter, ‘4<br />

Fig. 9.7. Final survei8iance specimen assembly.<br />

PHOTO 96504


71<br />

Table 9.5. Relative deposition intensity of fission products on graphite surveillance specimens fram final core specimen array<br />

Observed dpm/cm2/(MSRE inventory as isotope dpm/MSRE total metal and graphite area, em2)<br />

Activity and inventory data are as of reactor shutdown 12/12/69<br />

Numbers in parentheses are (MMSRE inventory/MSRE total area), dpm/cm2<br />

B, M, and T in sample numbers signify bottom, middle, and top regions of the core<br />

Roughness Centimeters from<br />

89sr 1 3 7 ~ ~ 14QBa 141Ce<br />

144Ce 95z~ 95Nb 99M0 IQ3Ru lQ6Ru lZsSb 13ZTe 129ffl<br />

Type Sample No.<br />

Te<br />

core center<br />

(1.37Ell") (8.53E9a) (1.73Ell) (1.83Ell) (8.05E10') (1.35Ell') (1.14Ell) (2.26E11) (4.48E10a) (4.47E9') (5.63B8) (1.85E10) (1.06E1 1)<br />

Outside<br />

(transition flow)<br />

Outside with wire<br />

(turbulent flow)<br />

Inside tube<br />

(transition flow)<br />

Postmortem: MSRE<br />

core bar segment<br />

5<br />

25<br />

125<br />

5<br />

25<br />

125<br />

5<br />

5<br />

125<br />

5<br />

5<br />

125<br />

-29<br />

-27<br />

-25<br />

+8<br />

+10<br />

4-12<br />

-28<br />

26<br />

-24<br />

+9<br />

+I1<br />

+13<br />

7-3-1-B outer<br />

7-3-144 outer<br />

7-3-1-T outer<br />

12-1-B outer<br />

12-1-M outer<br />

12-1-T outer<br />

7-3-1-B inner<br />

7-3-1-M inner<br />

7-3-1-T inner<br />

12-1-B inner<br />

12-1-M inner<br />

12-1-T inner<br />

4.2 0.023<br />

1.6 0.022<br />

2.4<br />

1.9<br />

2.0<br />

1.8<br />

0.31 0.0058<br />

0.26 0.0016<br />

0.18 0.0015<br />

0.49 0.0029<br />

0.34 0.0010<br />

0.39 0.0032<br />

0.17<br />

0.13<br />

0.08<br />

0.17<br />

0.17<br />

0.16<br />

0.016<br />

0.009<br />

0.009<br />

0.046<br />

0.028<br />

0.033<br />

0.0039<br />

0.003 1<br />

0.0069<br />

0.0090<br />

0.0037<br />

0.001 2<br />

0.0012<br />

0.0012<br />

0.0031<br />

0.001 8<br />

0.0010<br />

0.0036<br />

0.0008<br />

0.0013<br />

0.0015<br />

0.0005<br />

0.0006<br />

0.0006<br />

0.0011<br />

0.0009<br />

0.0009<br />

0.0002<br />

0.0021 0.21<br />

0.0019 0.21<br />

0.0018 0.18<br />

0.0025 0.25<br />

0.0023 0.15<br />

0.0021 0.15<br />

0.0014 0.04<br />

0.0016 0.25<br />

0.0016 0.24<br />

0.0027 0.25<br />

0.001 1 0.20<br />

0.0018 0.09<br />

0.083<br />

0.033<br />

0.035<br />

0.040<br />

0.039<br />

0.803 0.022<br />

0.22 0.150<br />

0.19 0.064<br />

99Tc<br />

0.049<br />

0.056<br />

0.035<br />

0.084<br />

0.069<br />

0.033<br />

Q.035<br />

0.0001<br />

0.039<br />

0.019<br />

0.108<br />

0.049<br />

0.047<br />

0.029<br />

0.065<br />

0.23<br />

0.011<br />

0.046<br />

0.029<br />

0.012<br />

0.025<br />

0.050<br />

0.065<br />

0.054<br />

0.579<br />

0.06 1<br />

0.057<br />

0.050<br />

' 'Te<br />

(Hnv = 2.9B9)<br />

0.56 0.44<br />

'Inventories sham accrue from all operation beginning with original startup. To correct inventories to show the material produced during current period (runs 19 and 20) only, multiply by factors given below. Ta obtain similarly corrected<br />

deposition intensity ratios, divide the value in the table by the factor for the isotope. Factors are: 52-day 89Sr = 0.90; 59-day 91Y = 0.86; 40-day Io3Ru = 0.95; 65-day 95Za = 0.84; 284-day '44Ce = 0.36; %-year Io6Wu = 0.32; 30-year 137Cs =<br />

0.14. For isotopes with shorter half-lives, corrections are trivial.<br />

1311<br />

0.0805<br />

0.0059<br />

0.0035<br />

0.0033<br />

0.0041<br />

0.0050<br />

0.0033<br />

0.0026<br />

0.0010<br />

0.003 1<br />

0.0019<br />

0.0017


Type<br />

Centimeters<br />

Roughness from<br />

‘pin.’ core center<br />

5<br />

25<br />

125<br />

Outside (transition flow) +24<br />

Outside Vyith wire (turbulent flow) 5<br />

25<br />

125<br />

Wire<br />

Wire<br />

Inside annulus (laminar flo~.)<br />

5<br />

125<br />

Inside tube [transition (?) flow] 5<br />

5<br />

125<br />

Stagnant (inside, liquid region)<br />

Stagnant (inside, gas region)<br />

Postmortem<br />

MSRE heat exchanger segment<br />

MSRE rod thimble segment (core)<br />

+25<br />

+27<br />

+16<br />

+18<br />

+20<br />

Table 9.6. Relative deposition intensity of fission products 011 IIasteMoy N surveillance specimens from final core specimen array<br />

Observed dpm/crn2/(MSRE inventory as isotope dpm/hlSKE total metal and graphite area, tin')<br />

Activity and inventory data are as of reactor shutdown 12/12/69<br />

Numbers in parenthcses are (MSRE inventory/MSRE total area), dpm/cm2<br />

B, M, and T in sample numbers signify bottom, middle, and top regions of the core<br />

Sample<br />

NO.<br />

”sr 137c,<br />

(1 37Ella) (8.53E9‘)<br />

140Ba<br />

(1.73Ell)<br />

I4lCe 144c,e<br />

(S.83Ell) (8.05E10‘)<br />

” Zr<br />

(1.35Ella)<br />

95fu-b<br />

(1.14Ell)<br />

9 9 ~ 1~ 0 3 ~<br />

(2.26b11) (4.48E10‘)<br />

~ 1 0 6 ~<br />

(4.47E9‘)<br />

~ 1 2 5 ~<br />

(5.63E8)<br />

~ 13%e<br />

(2.01Ell)<br />

129m..<br />

le<br />

_-___<br />

14-3-&<br />

14-3-M<br />

14-3-T<br />

13-2-B<br />

13-2-lLr<br />

13-2-T<br />

0.0016<br />

0.0013<br />

0.0010<br />

0.001 3<br />

0.0020<br />

0.0039<br />

0.0015<br />

0.0056<br />

0.0006<br />

0.0009<br />

0.0253<br />

0.0022<br />

0.001 2<br />

0.0009<br />

0.0007<br />

0.0013<br />

0.00 18<br />

0.0030<br />

0.0009<br />

0.0008<br />

0.0006<br />

G.0009<br />

0.001 1<br />

0.0012<br />

0.0004<br />

0.0003<br />

0.0003<br />

0.0004<br />

0.0005<br />

0.0005<br />

+18 13-3 wire 0.0019 0.0006 0.0015 0.0010 0.0001 0.0005 0.21 0.85 0.14 0.23 0.17<br />

0.0004<br />

0.0003<br />

0.0003<br />

0.0003<br />

0.0007<br />

0.0004<br />

+11 12-2 wire 0.0030 0.001 1 0.0021 0.0016 0.0008 0.0008 0.88 1.7 0.25 0.19 0.79 0.09<br />

-28<br />

-26<br />

+16<br />

+16<br />

+20<br />

+26<br />

+24<br />

+29<br />

+28<br />

+27<br />

7-143<br />

7-1-’r<br />

13-1-B<br />

113-1-bl<br />

I 3-1 -’r<br />

14-2-L2<br />

14-2-L1<br />

14-2-GS<br />

14 -2-G2<br />

14-2-63<br />

0.0018<br />

0.0020<br />

0.0021<br />

0.0021<br />

0.0019<br />

0.0030<br />

0.0010<br />

0.14<br />

0.47<br />

0.41<br />

0.0006<br />

0.0007<br />

0.0005<br />

0.001 2<br />

0.0007<br />

0.0020<br />

0.0002<br />

0.0027<br />

0.0022<br />

0.0014<br />

0.0015<br />

0.0017<br />

0.0020<br />

0.0018<br />

0.0015<br />

0.0002<br />

0.0002<br />

0.0057<br />

0.0077<br />

0.0069<br />

0.001 1<br />

0.0013<br />

0.0014<br />

0.0013<br />

0.0011<br />

0.00003<br />

0.00011<br />

0.00001<br />

0.00002<br />

0.00004<br />

0.0005<br />

0.0006<br />

0.0006<br />

0.0006<br />

0.0009:<br />

0.00002<br />

0.00006<br />

0.000005<br />

0.00001<br />

0.00001<br />

0.0006<br />

0.0006<br />

0.13<br />

0.12<br />

0.14<br />

0.26<br />

0.34<br />

0.49<br />

0.21<br />

0.39<br />

0.0007 0.37<br />

0.41<br />

0.0004 0.71<br />

0.00001<br />

0.00006<br />

0.00003<br />

0.00002<br />

0.00086<br />

0.005 1<br />

0.025<br />

0.0010<br />

0.0012<br />

0.0012<br />

3.4<br />

1.4<br />

1.7<br />

0.46<br />

2.2<br />

0.32<br />

1.2<br />

1.4<br />

3.7<br />

4.1<br />

3.6<br />

6 .O<br />

3 .O<br />

4.5<br />

5.3<br />

6.6<br />

Y9T~<br />

____<br />

0.094<br />

0.059<br />

0.056<br />

0.10<br />

0.20<br />

0.10<br />

0.09<br />

0.15<br />

0.34<br />

0.19<br />

0.23<br />

72<br />

0.005<br />

0.044<br />

0.0012<br />

0.0006<br />

0.0009<br />

0.127<br />

0.078<br />

0.079<br />

0.09<br />

0.17<br />

0.08<br />

0.06<br />

0.23<br />

0.32<br />

0.19<br />

0.17<br />

0.007<br />

0.043<br />

0.0010<br />

0.0006<br />

0.0009<br />

6.4<br />

1.9<br />

2.2<br />

1.1<br />

2.3<br />

3.0<br />

0.87<br />

0.93<br />

1.2<br />

1.1<br />

3.0<br />

0.03<br />

0.13<br />

0.14<br />

0.03<br />

0.03<br />

i*7Te<br />

(Inv = 2.9E9)<br />

1.4 1 .o<br />

1.6 1 .o<br />

aInventories shown accrue from all operation beginning with original startup. TO correct inventories to show the material produced during current period (runs 19 and 20) only, multiply by factors given below. l o obtain similarly corrected deposition<br />

intensity ratios, divide the value in table by the factor for isotope. Factors are: 52-day 8’Sr = 0.90; 59-day 9* Y = 0.86; 40-day ‘03Ru = 0.95; 65-day 95Zr = 0.84; 284-day “4Ce = 0.36; 1-year Io6Ru = 0.32; 30-year 137Cs = 0.14. For isotopes with shorter<br />

half-lives, corrections are trivial.<br />

0.20<br />

0.83<br />

0.55<br />

0.66<br />

0.13<br />

0.32<br />

1311<br />

(1.06Ell)<br />

0.060<br />

0.05 1<br />

0.046<br />

0.22<br />

0.37<br />

0.60<br />

0.09<br />

0.13<br />

0.19<br />

0.18<br />

0.18<br />

0.38<br />

0.002<br />

0.010<br />

0.0008<br />

0.0028<br />

0.0005


in. long; then an annulus" in. wide, 5 in. Long. A<br />

flow head loss of 0.057 ft, which should develop along<br />

the outer part of the basket, was assumed.<br />

In the annulus between the outside of the graphite<br />

cylinder and the basket, the velocity was estimated to<br />

be about 1.5 fps; the associated Reynolds number is<br />

2200, and the flow was either laminar or in the<br />

transition region. Some distance above, at the top of<br />

the assembly, was a Hastelloy N cylinder (No. 14, TabIe<br />

9.6; No. I. in Fig. 9.7) of similar external dimension,<br />

which presumably experienced similar flow conditions<br />

on the outside. This specimen was closed at the top and<br />

had a double wal1. Inside was a bar containing electron<br />

microscope screens. The liquid around the bar within<br />

the cylinder was stagnant, and gas was trapped in the<br />

upper part of the specimen.<br />

Below this, above the midplane of the specimen cage<br />

were located respectively graphite (Table 9.5, No. 12)<br />

and double-walled Hastelloy N (Table 9.6, No. 13)<br />

cylinders, with connecting '4 -in.-diam bores. Flow<br />

through this tube is believed to have been transition or<br />

possibly turbulent flow, though doubtless less turbulent<br />

than around the specimen exterior. The exterior of the<br />

1 -in.-OD cylinders was wrapped with -in. HasteIloy<br />

N wire on '/2-in. pitch as a flow disturbance. Flow in<br />

the annulus between the specimen exterior and the<br />

basket was undoubtedly the most turbulent of any<br />

affecting the set of specimens.<br />

The data from the various specimens are presented in<br />

Table 9.5 for graphite and Sable 9.6 for Hastelloy N in<br />

terms of relative deposit intensity.<br />

We saw no effect of surface roughness, which ranged<br />

from 5 to 125 pin. rms, on either metal or graphite, so<br />

this will not be hirther considered here.<br />

9.2.3 Fission recoil. Becausc the specimens were<br />

adjacent to fissioning salt in the core, some fission<br />

products should recoil into the surface.8 We cdculate<br />

that where the fission density equds the average for the<br />

core, the relative impingement intensity of recoiling<br />

fission fragments, (recoil atoms per square centimeter)/<br />

(reactor production/surface area), ranges from 0.0036<br />

for light fragments to 0.0027 for heavy fragments. The<br />

ratio will be higher (around 0.005) where the fission<br />

density is highest.<br />

9.2.4 Salt-seeking nuclides. Relative deposition in-<br />

tensities for salt-seeking nuclides (9 Zr, ' ' gle) are of<br />

the order of the calculated impingement intensities or<br />

less: for '§Zr, 0.001 to 0.0027 on graphite and 0.8003<br />

to Q.0008 on metal; for l4'Ce? 0.0010 to 0.0890 on<br />

graphite and 8.00Q6 to 0.0816 on metal. The deposi-<br />

tion of 284-day '"Ce is consistent with this, on a<br />

current basis after adjustment for prior inventory as<br />

shown in the table footnotes.<br />

There also appears to be some dependence on axial<br />

location, with higher values nearer the center of the<br />

core. Thus a11 of the salt-seeking nuclides observed on<br />

surfaces could have arrived there by fission recoil ; the<br />

fact that remaining deposition intensities on metal<br />

surfaces are consistently less thm impingement densities<br />

indicates that many atoms that impinge on the<br />

surface may sooner or later return to the salt.<br />

9.2.5 Nuclides with nrsble-gas precrarsors. The nuclides<br />

with noble-gas precursors ("Sr, ' 37fs, r40Ba,<br />

and, to a slight extent, 41 Ce) are, after formation, also<br />

salt seekers. They are found to be deposited on metal to<br />

about the same extent as isotopes of salt-seeking<br />

elements, doubtless by fission recoil. However, noblegas<br />

precursors can diffuse into graphite before decay,<br />

providing an additional and major path into graphite. It<br />

may be seen that values for "Sr, 'Cs? and 14'Ba for<br />

the graphite samples are generally an order of magnitude<br />

or more greater than for the salt-seeking elements.<br />

It appears evident that the deposit intensity on<br />

graphite of the isotopes with noble-gas precursors was<br />

higher on the outside than on the inside, both of<br />

specimen 7 and specimen 12. Flow was also more<br />

turbulent outside than inside, and atomic mass transfer<br />

coefficients should be higher. [Flows are not well<br />

enough known to accurately compare the outside of the<br />

lower specimen (No. 7-3) with the inside of the upper<br />

graphite tube specimen (No. 12-1)].<br />

Appreciably more 3.1-min "Mr and 3.9-min 37Xe<br />

should enter the graphite than 16-sec 14'Xe or 2-sec<br />

' Xe, but the ' 'Cs values are considerably lower<br />

than for 8sSr. Only about 14% of the 13'Cs inventory<br />

was formed during runs 19 and 20. With this correction,<br />

however, * '6s deposition intensities still are less than<br />

those observed for strontium. As will be discussed<br />

later' the major part of the cesium formed in graphite<br />

will diffuse back into the salt much more strongly than<br />

the less volatile strontium; this presumably accounts for<br />

the lower 'Cs intensity.<br />

At first glance the "fast flow" values for 89Sr on<br />

graphite appear somewhat high even though Kr entry<br />

to graphite from salt was facilitated by the more rapid<br />

flow. Similar intensity on dl flow-channel graphite<br />

would account for the major part of the "Sr inventory,<br />

while salt analysis for the period showed tkat the<br />

salt contained about 82% of the "Sr. But the<br />

discrepancy is not unacceptable, since most core fuel<br />

channels had lower velocity and less turbulent, possibly<br />

laminar flow.<br />

On the inside of the closed tube the deposition of<br />

39Sr and other salt-seeking daughters of noble gases was<br />

much higher in the gas space than in the salt-filled<br />

region. This is consistent with collection of 'Kr in the


gas space and the relative immobility of strontium<br />

deposits on surfaces not washed by salt.<br />

9.2.6 Noble metals: atiobhna and molybdenum.<br />

Turning to the noble-metal fission products, we note<br />

that "Nb deposited fairly strongly and fairly evenly on<br />

all surfaces. The data are not inconsistent with postmortem<br />

examination of reactor components, to be<br />

described later. Molybdenunl (9 'Mo) deposited considerably<br />

more strongly on nietal than OR graphite<br />

(limited graphite data). Because the relative deposit<br />

intensity of molybdenum on metal is similar to that of<br />

8'Sr on graphite, which is attributed to atomic krypton<br />

diffusion through the salt boundary layer, it may be<br />

that molybdenum could also have been transported in<br />

appreciable part by an atomic mechanism: and presumably<br />

had a high sticking factor on metal (about I?).<br />

Under similar flow conditions, the deposit intensity of<br />

molybdenum on graphite is much less; hence the<br />

sticking factor on graphite is doubtless much below<br />

unity. Postmortem component examination found that<br />

the Tc daughter also was more intensely deposited on<br />

metal than on graphite.<br />

The widely varying "9~o values for sait samples<br />

taken during this period, however, imply that a significant<br />

amount of 99Mo occurred along with other<br />

noblemetal isotopes in pump bowl salt samples as<br />

particulates. Since molybdenum was relatively high in<br />

the present surveillance samples also, it may be that an<br />

appreciable part of the deposition involved material<br />

from this pool.<br />

Because moiybdenum deposited more strongly than<br />

its precursor niobium, an appreciable part of the<br />

molybdenum found must have deposited independently<br />

of niobium deposition, and niobium behavior may only<br />

roughly indicate molybdenum behavior at best. This<br />

may well be due to the relation of niobium behavior to<br />

the redox potential of the sait, while molybdenum may<br />

not be affected in the same way.<br />

9.2.4 ~iuthenium. he rutlienium isotopcs, 031gu<br />

and lo 6R~,<br />

showed quite similar behavior as would be<br />

expected, and did not exhibit any marked response to<br />

flow or flux variations. The ruthenium isotopes appear<br />

to deposit severalfold more intensely on metal than on<br />

graphite. The correction of inventories to material<br />

formed only during the exposure period will increase<br />

the 'O6~u intensity ratios about tlirecfold but avi~<br />

change the ' 03Ru intensity ratio very little. On such a<br />

inventory basis the '03Ru deposition will then be<br />

appreciably lower than that for O RU; this indicates<br />

that an appreciable net time lag may occur before<br />

deposition and argues against a dominant direct atomic<br />

deposition mechanism for this element.<br />

9.2.8 Tellurium. The tellurium isotopes Te (on<br />

metals) and 'mTe (on graphite) show an appreciably<br />

stronger (almost 40 times) relative deposit intensity on<br />

metal than on graphite, indicative of real differences in<br />

sticking factor. Deposit intensities of tellurium were<br />

moderately higher in faster flow regions than in low<br />

flow regions (2 times or more), possibly indicative of<br />

response to mass transfer effects. Flux effects are not<br />

significant.<br />

Postmortem examination of MSWE components<br />

showed 'Sb and 7Te deposition intensities which<br />

were consistent with thisl except that the deposition<br />

intensity of tellurium on the cure fue1-channel surfaces<br />

was higher than we observe here on surveillance<br />

specimens.<br />

On balance, it appears that the sticking factor of<br />

tellurium on metal is relativcly high. This might resuIt<br />

from direct atomic deposition and/or deposition on<br />

particulate material which then deposits selectively but<br />

securely. Such strong intensity of tellurium in the<br />

deposits could be the result of direct deposition of<br />

tellurium, or of similar prompt deposition of precursor<br />

antimony with retention of the tellurium daughter, or<br />

both. The data do not tell.<br />

9.2.9 Iodine. Iodine exhibits deposit intensities<br />

which appear to be at least an order of magnitude lower<br />

than tellurium, both for graphite specimens and, at<br />

considerably higher levels for both tellurium and iodine,<br />

for the metal specimens. The data for the metal surface<br />

mostly vary with teliurium, suggesting that the iodine<br />

found is a result of tellurium deposition and decay, but<br />

with most of the iodine formed having returned to the<br />

salt.<br />

9.2.50 Sticking f~t~rs. In generai the data of the<br />

final surveiilance assembly are consistent with those of<br />

the earlier assemblies. The pairing of the metal and<br />

graphite specimens in the final assembly permits some<br />

conclusions about relative sticking factors that were<br />

implied but jess certain in the earlier assemblies.<br />

It appears evident, because the deposition intensity<br />

differs for different isotopes under the same flow<br />

conditions, that the sticking factor must be below unity<br />

for may of the noble-metal isotopes: either on metal or<br />

on graphite. The deposition intensity appears rather<br />

generally to be higher on metals than on graphite and<br />

could approach unity. En terms of mechanism, low<br />

values of sticking factor could result if only part of the<br />

area was active or if material was returned to the liquid,<br />

either as atoms via chemical equilibrium processes, or<br />

by pickup of deposited particulate material from the<br />

surface.


kL..+<br />

The values would be low if the inventory should be<br />

distributed over a larger area than just the sum of<br />

system metal and graphite areas. Such areas might<br />

include the surface of bubbles or colioidd particles in<br />

the circulating salt.<br />

It is adequately clear. however, that under similar<br />

flow conditions, the intensities of deposits on metal and<br />

graphite surfaces differ significantly for most noble-<br />

metal elements, with more intense deposits of a given<br />

nuclide generally occurring on the metal surface of a<br />

similarly exposed metal-graphite pair.<br />

9.3 Prof&? h ad<br />

9.3.1 Procedure. As described earlier in this section,<br />

for most graphite surveillance specimens a succession of<br />

thin cuts were made inward from each face to depths<br />

frequently of about 50 mils (S.CIS0 in.). These cuts were<br />

individually bottled. weighed. and analyzed for each<br />

nuclide. The summations for the individual faces have<br />

already been given in the earlier tables of this section. It<br />

does not appear expedient to account here for the<br />

individual samples (which would increase the volume of<br />

data manyfold), since most of the information is<br />

summarized in typical profiles shown below for samples<br />

a $0 20 30 40 so<br />

DISTBNCE FffOM SLAFACE (VIIS)<br />

Fig. 9.8. Concentration profi6e for 7Cs in impregnated<br />

CGB graphite, sample P-92.<br />

removed after run 14. We note that improved hot-cell<br />

milling techniques permitted recovery of 95 to 99% uf<br />

the removed material for these samples, with little cross<br />

contamination indicated.<br />

The results of these procedures on two samples of<br />

MSRE (CGB) graphite are shown in Figs. 9.8 - 9.14. The<br />

sample labeled P58 was a CGB graphite exposed slightly<br />

above the core midplane and was inserted after run 11.<br />

Sample X-13 was exposed slightly below midplane and<br />

was Inserted after run 7, being withdram and returned<br />

after run E 1.<br />

Data for the various nuclides are presented as semi-<br />

logarithmic plots of activity per unit mass of graphite vs<br />

cut depth. Although such a plot permits easy display of<br />

the data, it does tend to obscure the general fact that<br />

!O"<br />

t - +--'-- .--<br />

+ - I<br />

I '


76<br />

t -- - ~~<br />

~-<br />

l - I<br />

Fig. 9.10. Concentration profile\ for and '"Oh in Fig. 9.11. Concentration profiles for "Sb and 95Z~ in CGB<br />

pyrolytic gaphite.<br />

graphite, X-13, double exposure.<br />

-<br />

i<br />

L--..


\<br />

k<br />

n<br />

10"<br />

0 io 20 30 40 50<br />

DISTANCE FROM SJRFCCE (rrils)<br />

Fig. 9.12. Concentration profiles for lo3~u<br />

77<br />

C 40 20 30 4c 50<br />

DISTANCE FROW SJRFACE (mils)<br />

on two faces of Fig. 9.13. Concentration profiles for 106Ru5 141Ce. and<br />

the X-13 graphite specimen, CGB, double exposure. 44Ce in CGB graphite, sample Y-9.


1<br />

K16 1<br />

3 '0 2 3 30 40 53<br />

D STAIJCE FROU 5JPFACE imilsi<br />

pig. 9.14. Concentration profiles for 1 4 ' and ~ ~ 144~e in<br />

two snmples of CGB graphite, X-13, wide face, and P-38.<br />

by far the greatest amount of any nucIide was to be<br />

found wlthin a very few mils of the surface. Conse-<br />

quently What the fission product profiles tend to<br />

display is the behavior of the small fraction of the<br />

deposited nuclide which penetrates beyond the first few<br />

mils.<br />

Additional data on samples from this set of specimens<br />

were obtained by Guneo and co-workers, using a<br />

technique developed by Evans. The technique offered<br />

78<br />

less possibility of cross contamination of samples.<br />

According to this technique the specimen was generally<br />

cut longitudinally and at the midplane, and a core was<br />

driiled to the outer surface. The core was then dued to<br />

a cold graphite coupon, which in turn was glued to a<br />

machined steel piston. This piston, the position of<br />

which could be measured accurately using a dial<br />

micrometer, fitted into a holder which was moved on a<br />

piece of emery paper. The resulting powder was Scotch<br />

taped in place, and the total activity of various nuclides<br />

was determined using a gamma-ray spectrometer.<br />

3.3.2 Rmdts. Results using this technique are shown<br />

in Figs. 9.15---9.17.<br />

The material found on or in the graphite doubtless<br />

emerged from the adjacent salt. Transport from salt can<br />

occur by fission product atom recoil from adjacent fuel<br />

salt, bp the deposition of elemental fission products<br />

diffusing out of salt as atoms or borne by salt as<br />

colloids. by chemical reaction of salt-soluble species<br />

with graphite, by diffusion of gases from salt and<br />

deposition onto graphite! and by physical transport of<br />

salt into graphite, either by pressure permearion of<br />

cracks, by wetting the graphite, or by sputtering<br />

processes due to fission spikes in salt close to the<br />

graphite surfaces.<br />

Of these, there is no indication of reaction of<br />

fluorides with graphite (with niobium a possible exsep-<br />

tion), and volatile substances are not thought to be a<br />

factor, the nobk-gas nuclides excepted. Furthermore,<br />

the graphite did not appear to be wet by salt.<br />

Occasionally there was an indication that salt entered<br />

cracks in the graphite, and this couid be a factor for a<br />

few samples.<br />

The nuclides most certain to be found at greatest<br />

depths should be the daughters of the noble gases.<br />

Profiles for 'Sr and ' 40 ~a are shown in Fig. 9.9.<br />

9.3.3 Diffusion mechanism relatiomhips. Among the<br />

ways in which fission products might enter into and<br />

diffuse in graphite are (1) recoil of fission fragments<br />

from adjacent sail, (2) diffusion into graphite of noble<br />

or other short-lived gases originating in salt which on<br />

decay will deposit a nonmobile daughter, (3) formation<br />

of fission products from uranium that was found at that<br />

depth in the graphite, (4) migration of fission products<br />

by a surface diffirsivn mechanism.<br />

In our consideration of any mechanisms for the<br />

migration of fission products. we will seek (1) estimates<br />

of the amount of activity on unit area, summed over all<br />

depths (expressed as disintegrarions per minute per<br />

square centimeter), (2) the surface concentration<br />

(expressed as disintegrations per minute per gram oF<br />

graphite): and (3) the variation of concentration with


79<br />

March


I - ,<br />

SAMPI F LZbILC’<br />

- GRlhClNG -’<br />

-.pl-<br />

0 (3 2c 30 40 50 60 70 540 320 5% 340 35C 360 373 380 390 400 410 4X 430 440 450 460<br />

DcFTH IN GRAQ-IITE (m~ls)<br />

Fig. 9.16. Fission product distribution in impregnated CGB (V-28) graphite specimen irradiated in MSRE cycle ending March 25,<br />

1968.


depth - usually expressed as the depth required to<br />

halve (or otherwise reduce) the concentration. We<br />

should also try to relate the calculated activity to the<br />

calculated inventory activity of fuel salt (expressed as<br />

disintegrations per minute per gram of salt) developed<br />

for the exposure period.<br />

Since 25% of the fissions occurring in salt within one<br />

range unit wili leave the salt and doubtless enter the<br />

adjacent graphite, and if we use as applicable to salt the<br />

range of light and heavy fragments in zirconium,<br />

determined as 7.5 and 5.9 mg/cm2 respectively, we can<br />

calculate the accumulated recoil activity:<br />

inv. dpm 0.0053 for heavy<br />

recoir c1prnlcm2 = ~ x<br />

g salt 8.0043 for Ii&t '<br />

I x /<br />

where I is the ratio of local to core average neutron<br />

flux. (1 - 2 to 4 for core center specimens. depending<br />

on axial position.)<br />

Only in the case of salt-seeking nuclides is recoil a<br />

dominant factor.<br />

The range of fksion products entering a graphite of<br />

density 1.86 was determinedlo as 3.07 mdcm2 for<br />

5Y and 2.5 1 mg/cm2 for "Xe; this corresponds to<br />

16.5 and 13.5 p, so that the penetration shouId be<br />

limited to a nominal 0.6 mi1.<br />

The transport of fission gases in graphite has been<br />

reported' 3' for representative CGB graphites.<br />

The diffusion of noble gases in graphite also involves<br />

diffusion through boundary layers of the adjacent salt.<br />

We will express the behavior in graphite as a function of<br />

the entering flux, and then use this as a boundary<br />

condition for diffusion from salt.<br />

At steady state the diffusion of a short-lived gaseous<br />

nuclide into a plane-surfaced semi-infinite porous solid<br />

has been shown by Evans' to be characterized by the<br />

foIl owing :<br />

where<br />

Cg = atom concentration in surface gas phase,<br />

JG = atom flux entering surcace,<br />

E = total porosity ofgraphite,<br />

DG = Knodsen diffusion coefficient in graphite,<br />

IYCV) = concentration of atoms in gas phase in pores at<br />

depth y.<br />

82<br />

The surface concentration of a nonmobile daughter in<br />

graphite resulting from the decay of a diffusing short-<br />

lived precursor is obtained from the accumulation<br />

expression<br />

where C2 is the daughter concentration per gram of<br />

graphite. Integrating this across the power history of<br />

the run, we obtain for the activity (aa 1 of the daughter<br />

in disintegrations per minute per gram of graphite;<br />

further,<br />

where<br />

a2 o/) = A (a2 )o expi-Pvi ; c 2)<br />

JGo = gas nuclide flux into graphite at unit power,<br />

(inv.Irun is the activity inventory accumulated by salt<br />

during run,<br />

Fa = fission rate at unit PQWH in given mass,<br />

Y = fission yield.<br />

The total accumulation for unit surface integrated<br />

over all depths follows as<br />

It remains to determine the flux into the graphite,JO<br />

at unit power, by considering conditions within the salt.<br />

The short -lived noble-gas nuclide is generated volumetrically<br />

in the salt: the characteristic distance<br />

(DJX)'/~ is about 0.06 cm for a 200-sec rmclicie and<br />

about 0.013 cm for a 10-sec nuclide. The salt in a<br />

boundary layer at 0.013 cm from the wall of a fuel<br />

channel with a width of 1 cm will flow more slowly<br />

than the bulk salt and will require perhaps 100 sec to<br />

traverse the cote. For nuclides of 10 sec or less half-life<br />

and as an approximation for longer-lived nuclides,<br />

KedlI3 showed that such flow terms could be neglected,<br />

so that at steady state<br />

where QS is the volumetric generation rate in core salt,<br />

D, is diffusion coefficient in salt, C, is the local con-<br />

.... . ..... ...., ..<br />

w.:*"


centration in salt, and r is the distance from the slab<br />

channel midplane.<br />

Boundary conditions are :<br />

1. at midplane:<br />

2. at either surface:<br />

where<br />

r=ro, Js =Jc ,<br />

J, = flux in salt at surface;<br />

whereby<br />

and<br />

where<br />

C, = CgKc ,<br />

K, = Ostwald solubility coefficient<br />

Integration and satisfaction of the midplane boundary<br />

condition yields:<br />

C, = C cosh ( r a ) + Q/X .<br />

The second boundary condition evaluates e:<br />

We may now obtain<br />

Because coth ( r Q m ) - 1 and K, 4 (foG/Ds)li2 ,<br />

FQ Y salt vol.<br />

(20 = I-.-.-X----.-- x Psalt .<br />

mass core vol.<br />

83<br />

We now are able to write the desired expression fur<br />

the activity of nonmobile daughters of short-lived noble<br />

gases which diffuse into graphite.<br />

1. Surface activity, disintegrations per minute per gram<br />

of graphite:<br />

1 12<br />

salt vol. e 4 .<br />

x- core vol. (Un)<br />

2. Activity per grain of graphite at any depth, disinte-<br />

grations per minute:<br />

3. Total accumulation for unit surface, integrated over<br />

all depths:<br />

Table 9.7 applies these results to the specimens<br />

removed at the end of run 14. A comparison with<br />

observations given earlier in Table 9.3 is commented cn<br />

later.<br />

A third possibility of developing activity within the<br />

graphite is from the traces of uranium found in the<br />

graphite.<br />

Here the relationship is:<br />

salt vd.<br />

As2 (U)b) = (inv.)Iun X I X -<br />

core vol.<br />

35 u conc. in graphite at given depth<br />

23~conc.in 1 gofsalt ><br />

under the assumption that the uranium was present in<br />

the graphite at the given location for essentially all of<br />

the run. The 3s LJ concentration in fuel salt was about<br />

15,5QB ppm;<br />

---<br />

salt vol. 71 ft3<br />

core vol. 23 ft3 -3.<br />

The concentration at various depths of 235U in a<br />

specimen of CGB graphite is shown in Fig. 9.113. The<br />

surface concentration of about 70 ppm soon fdls to


0 40 20 30 40 50<br />

DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (mils)<br />

Pig. 9.18. Uranium235 concentration profiles in CGB and<br />

pydytic graphite.<br />

84<br />

near 1 ppm. Similar data were obtained for a11<br />

specimens.<br />

Table 3.8 shows that for 1446e, 95Zr, Io3Ru, and<br />

31 I: at depths greater than about 4 mils the activity<br />

c~uld be accounted for as having been produced by the<br />

trace of2 U which was present at that depth.<br />

The total quantity of * ' k;' associated with graphite<br />

surfaces was quite small. Totd deposition ranged<br />

between 0.15 and 2.3 pg of 35U per square centimeter,<br />

with a median value of about 0.8 pg of' 3s U per<br />

square centimeter. This is equivalent to less than 2 g of<br />

235U on all the system graphite surface (about 1 OR<br />

flow-channel surfaces) out of an inventory of 45,080 g<br />

of a U in the system.<br />

8.3.4 Conclusions from profile data. As an overview<br />

of the profile data the following observations appear<br />

valid.<br />

Let us roughly separate the depths into surface (less<br />

than 1 mil), subsurface (about to 7 mils), moderately<br />

deep (about 4 to 20 mils): and deep (over 20 mils).<br />

For salt-seeking nuclides, * Ru and ' Wu and I<br />

the moderately deep and deep regions are a result of<br />

235U penetration and fission. wc have noted in an<br />

earlier section that for salt-seeking nuclides the total<br />

activity fur unit surface was in fair agreement with<br />

45' I----<br />

recoil effects. Profiles indicate that aImosf all of the<br />

activity for these nuclides was very near the surface,<br />

consistent with this. For these the only region for<br />

which evidence is not clear is the subsurface (1 to 7<br />

Table 9.9. Caleuhted specimen activity parameters after run 14 based on<br />

diffusion calculations and salt inventory<br />

-.-<br />

~ .-<br />

. . - . ..<br />

Chain 89 91 137 140 141<br />

~.<br />

- .-<br />

Gas half-life, sec 191 9.8 234 16 1 .I<br />

DG. crn'isec<br />

I),, cm2/sec<br />

1.SE ~ 5<br />

1.4F. ~ ~ 5<br />

1.5E - 5<br />

1.4E 5<br />

1.2E - 5<br />

1.3E - 5<br />

1.2E - 5<br />

1.3E - 5<br />

1.2E 5<br />

1.3E - 5<br />

E 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1<br />

Halving depth, mjJs 56 13 55 14 4.7<br />

Daughter "Sr SIY 1 3 7 ~ ~ 1 4 " ~ ~ "1Ce<br />

HIiventorp/ dis/min per gam of salt 1.1El1 1.3E11 4.2Ega 1.7Ell 1.5Ell<br />

Surface concentration,b disinrin per grain of graphite<br />

'Total activity,b dis Inin-' cm-?<br />

1.2E11<br />

4.6 E I a<br />

1.4Ell<br />

1.2ElO<br />

5 .Ok9<br />

1 .YE9<br />

2.0k11<br />

1.9E;:IO<br />

l.8Ell<br />

5.6E.9<br />

'Inventory here is total at end of run 14. Carryover from prior runs is insignificant by the end of run 14 except in the case of<br />

'Cs, where operation prior tu end oi' rim 1 k contributes about half the inventory at the end of run 14. 3 I9 days later.<br />

h ~ ~ a local ~ relative ~ ~ flux n of e I. ~<br />

~~ ~


... .... .@<br />

mils), where the values, though declining rapidly, may<br />

be higher than explicable by these mechanisms.<br />

The nuclides having noble-gas precursors (it.> * 'Sr,<br />

14"Ba, I4lCe, "Y) do clearly exhibit the results of<br />

noble-gas diffusion. The slopes and surface concentrations<br />

are roughly as estimated. The total disintegrations<br />

per minute per square centiineter is in accord.<br />

In the case of<br />

' Cs, the levels are considerably too<br />

low in the moderately deep and deep regions, indicating<br />

that cesium was probably somewhat mobile in the<br />

graphite. Additional evidence on this point is presented<br />

later.<br />

This leaves 95Nb, 99Mo, arid possibly 132Te and<br />

129mTe. These nuclides appear to have migrated in<br />

graphite, and in particular there is about 16, times as<br />

much niobium as was explicable in terms of the parent<br />

95 Zr present or the 35 U at that depth. Such migration<br />

might occur because the nuclides were volatile fluorides<br />

or because they form stable carbides at this temperature<br />

and sane surface diffusion due to metd-carbon chemi-<br />

sorption occurred. The latter possibility, which seems<br />

most likely, seems also to explain the traces of 35 U<br />

found having migrated into the graphite.<br />

9.4 Other Findings on Surveillance Specimens<br />

In visual examination of surveillance specimens, slight<br />

amounts of flush salt and, on occasion, dark green fuel<br />

salt were found as small droplets and plates on the<br />

surface of specimens, particularly on faces that had<br />

P-77<br />

X-13 wide<br />

X-13 narrow<br />

Y-9<br />

P-58<br />

P-92<br />

K-1 wide<br />

K-1 narrow<br />

PG I<br />

PG II<br />

85<br />

been in contact with other specimens. A brown<br />

dusty-looking film was discerned on about half of the<br />

fuel-exposed surfaces, using a 30-power microscope.<br />

Examination by electron microscopy of a surface film<br />

removed by pressing acetone-dampened cellulose acetate<br />

tape against a graphite surface revealed only<br />

graphite diffraction patterns. Later, spectrographic<br />

analysis showed that appreciable quantities of stable<br />

molybdenum isotopes were present on many surfaces.<br />

Presumably these were not crystalline enough to show<br />

electron diffraction patterns.<br />

Thin transverse slices of five specimens were examined<br />

by x radiography. Many of the salt-exposed<br />

surfaces and some other surfaces appeared to have a<br />

thin film of heavy material less than 10 mils thick.<br />

Results of spectrographic analyses of samples from<br />

graphite surface' cuts are shown in Table 9.9? expressed<br />

as micrograms of element per square centimeter. Data<br />

for zirconium, lithium, and iron are not included here<br />

since they showed too much scatter to be usefully<br />

interpreted.<br />

About 15 pg of fuel salt would contain 1 pg of<br />

beryllium. Similarly, about 13 1-16 of Hastellay N might<br />

contain 1 pg of chromium and also about 9 pg of nickel<br />

and perhaps 2 pg of molybdenum. Thus the spectrographic<br />

analysis for beryllium corresponds to about<br />

6-60 pg of fuel salt per square centimeter. The nickel<br />

analyses correspond tu 7-9 pg of Hastelloy N per<br />

square centimeter, and the chromium and molybdenum<br />

(except for a high value) are in at least rough<br />

agreement .<br />

Table 9.8. List of miUed cuts from gaphite for which the fisshrn product content could be<br />

approximately accounted for by the uranium present<br />

3,10 6-10 6,lO<br />

10 7-10 7-10<br />

10 5-10 5-10<br />

10 IO 10<br />

9,lO 5-10 5-10<br />

5-7 5-7<br />

5-9 5-9<br />

2 3-10 3-10 3-6,s 3 4<br />

10 7,10<br />

4-1 0 10<br />

7-10<br />

5-10<br />

IO<br />

7-10<br />

5-10 $-to<br />

5-10 1<br />

5-9<br />

2-10 2-10 2-16) 2-10<br />

2-10 10<br />

"Nominally, in mils, cut No. 1 was i;<br />

2, $2; 3, 1; 4, 2; 5, 3; 6, 5; 7, 8; 8, LO; 9, IO; IO, 10.<br />

'The samples are listed in order of distance fFOKl the bottom of the reactor.<br />

3-10<br />

7-10 9-10<br />

5-10 3-10<br />

10 10<br />

7-10 7-10<br />

49-10<br />

1,5--10<br />

5-9<br />

2-10 3-10<br />

2,8--10 5-10


The quantities of molybdenum are too high to<br />

correspond to Hastelloy N composition and strongly<br />

suggest that they are appreciabiy made up of fission<br />

product molybdenum.<br />

Between the end of run 11 and run 24, about 4400<br />

effective full-power hours were developed, and MSRE<br />

would contain about 140 g of stable molybdenum<br />

isotopes formed by fission, or about 46 pg per square<br />

centimeter of MSRE surface. The observed median<br />

value of 9 wouM correspond to a relative deposit<br />

intensity of 0.2, a magnitude quite comparable with the<br />

0.1 median value reported for Mo deposit intensities<br />

on graphite for this set of stringers.<br />

Wliquots of two of these samples were examined mass<br />

spectrographically for inolybdenum isotopes. Table<br />

Graphite<br />

Sample<br />

NR-5W<br />

NR-SN<br />

P-55W<br />

P-77W<br />

P-77N<br />

x-1 3w<br />

x-1 3N<br />

Y-9w<br />

P-58W<br />

P-92W<br />

P-92X<br />

Poc 0-w<br />

P oca-N<br />

Pyr I<br />

Pyr II<br />

MR-low<br />

MR-1 ON<br />

Table 9.9. SpectYogaphic analyses of graphite<br />

specimens after 32,000 M W<br />

Micrograms pee Square Centimeter<br />

4.1<br />

4.6<br />

of Spec h en<br />

Be MO Cr Ni<br />

0.457<br />

1.61<br />

1.0<br />

1.1<br />

0.7<br />

0.4<br />

0.4<br />

2.00<br />

2.67<br />

0.60<br />

0.62<br />

1.3<br />

4.1<br />

17.6<br />

44.<br />

4.5<br />

7.4 0.15<br />

9.3 1.03 4.4<br />

8.7<br />

11.3<br />

0.49 5.5<br />

9.0<br />

10.5<br />

0.55 6.6<br />

86<br />

9.18 gives the isotopic composition (stable) for natural<br />

molybdenum, fission product molybdenum (for suitable<br />

irradiation and cooling periods), and the samples.<br />

This table suggests that the deposits contained comparable<br />

parts of natural and fission product molybdenum.<br />

Some preferential deposition of the 95 and 97<br />

chdins seems indicated, possibly by stronger deposition<br />

of niobium precursors.<br />

Determinations of lithium and fluorine penetration<br />

into MSRE graphite reported by MacBdin, Gibbons. and<br />

co-workers' 4-1 were made by inserting samples across<br />

a collimated beam of 2.06-MeV protons, measuring the<br />

t9~(p,cuy)'60 intense gamma ray and neutrons from<br />

the 'Li(p.n)'Be reaction. Graphite was appropriately<br />

abraded tu permit determination of these salt constit-<br />

uents at various depths, up to about 200 mils.<br />

Data for the two specimens - Y-7, removed after run<br />

11, and X-13, removed after run 14 - are shown in<br />

Figs. 9.19-9.25.<br />

These data for each specimen show, plotted logarith-<br />

mically, a decline in concentration sf lithium, and<br />

fluorine with depth. Possibly the simplest summary is<br />

that, for specimen X-13 removed after run 14. the<br />

lithium, fluorine, and, in a similar specimen, 'LT<br />

declined in the same pattern. The lithium-to-fluorine<br />

ratios scattered around that for fuel salt (not that for<br />

LiF). The 23 5U content. though appearing slightly high<br />

(it was based on a separate sample), followed the same<br />

pattern, indicating no remarkable special concentrating<br />

effect for this element. The data for sample X-13 might<br />

be reproduced if by some rncclianism a slight amount of<br />

fuel salt had migrated into the gaphite<br />

The pattern for the earlier sample Y-7, removed after<br />

run f I, is similar with respect to lithium. &ut the<br />

fluorine values continue to decrease with depth, so that<br />

below about 20 mils there is an apparent deficiency of<br />

fluorine. Any mechanism supported by this observation<br />

would appear to require independent migration of<br />

fluorine and lithium.<br />

It thus appears possible that slight amounts of fuel<br />

salt may have migrated into the graphite, and the<br />

presence of uranium (and resultant fission products)<br />

Table 9. IO. Percentage isotopic compo~itlo~l of molybdenum on surveillance specimens<br />

92 94 95 96 91 98 100<br />

Fh'atural 15.86 9.12 15.70 16.50 9.45 23.75 9.62<br />

Fission 0 0 22 -25 0 25-24 25 -24 27-26<br />

Samples 4.0; 5.0 2.9: 3.8 28.6; 21.3 4.8; 4.9 30.2; 29.6 15.1; 15.2 14.1; 14.4<br />

Redetermination 3.4: 3.3 2.1; 1.8 28.9; 30.3 3.9; 3.6 32.7; 33.5 15.9; 14.9 13.1; 12.6


200<br />

!GO<br />

L<br />

6 50<br />

w<br />

3<br />

5<br />

2<br />

f<br />

20<br />

87<br />

Fig. 9.19. Lithium corncentpatican ;as B function of distance from the swface, specimen Y-7.<br />

OWL-DWG 68-2545R<br />

500 c- t 4 0 MEASURING rNWA9I; FROM FIRST SURFACE<br />

G OUTWARD TOlNARD SECO<br />

10 2 5 10 2 5 100 2 5 ~006<br />

DEPTH (rnlld<br />

1000<br />

500<br />

200<br />

L<br />

$ io0<br />

hi<br />

iz 50<br />

- ><br />

[il<br />

20<br />

a<br />

I<br />

-<br />

10<br />

5<br />

2<br />

T<br />

SECOND SJPFACE<br />

ORhL-DVIG 66-TFi40A<br />

Fig. 9.21. Fluorine concentrations in graphite sample Y-7.<br />

I l l 1 b-<br />

0005 004 002 005 ar 02 05 10<br />

eX@oSed t0 mdten fMd Sdd in the MSRE fQOH ilh? ll2Onh.<br />

Mrasurernents were made as the sample was ground away in<br />

DEPTH (cml<br />

iayers progxssing from the first surface to the center (open<br />

concenm'on as a function Of disMce<br />

from the surface, specimen X-13.<br />

circles) and then from the interior toward the second surface<br />

(closed triangles). l'he distances shown are as measured from<br />

the nearest surface exposed to molten salts.


-<br />

4000<br />

500<br />

200<br />

E 400<br />

a Q<br />

v<br />

50<br />

20<br />

f0<br />

5<br />

88<br />

(0 400<br />

DISTANCE FROM SURFACE ( mils)<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-DWG 68-!4530<br />

Pig. 9.22. Fluorine concentration as a function of distance from the surface, specimen X-13.<br />

A<br />

v<br />

-<br />

-I<br />

fc<br />

500<br />

200<br />

fOO<br />

50<br />

28<br />

BO<br />

5<br />

OWL-DWG 68-44534<br />

z 2 5 10 20 50 400 200 500<br />

RISTANCE FROM SURFACE , mils<br />

Fig. 9.23. Comparison of lithium concentrations in samples Y-7 and X-13.<br />

. .. %. . . .... i _-


.,.,.,.,. ....<br />

lb<br />

m<br />

500<br />

200<br />

{ 00<br />

20<br />

(0<br />

5<br />

50<br />

20<br />

p 10<br />

t<br />

LY<br />

2<br />

f<br />

89<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-BWG 68-44532<br />

4 2 5 10 20 50 COO 200 500 too0<br />

DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (mils)<br />

Fig. 9.24. Mass concentration ratio, F/Li, vs depth, specimen X-13.<br />

t 2 5 to 20 50 too 208 530<br />

DISTANCE FROM SURFKE (mils)<br />

Pig. 9.25. Comparison of fluorine concentrations in simples<br />

Y-7 and X-13, a smooth line having been drawn through the<br />

data points.<br />

within the graphite may largely be explained by this.<br />

Microcracks, where present, would provide a likely<br />

path, as would special clusters of graphite porosity.<br />

References<br />

1. W. H. Cook, “MSRE Material Surveillance Tests,”<br />

MSR Program Semiannu. Progr. Rep. Feb. 28, 6965,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-3812, pp. 83-86.<br />

2. W. H. Cook, “MSRE Materials Surveillance Testing,”<br />

hfSR Progrmn Semiannu. Bogr. Rep. Aug. 31,<br />

194.5, QRNL-3872, p. 87.<br />

3. C. H. Gabbard, Design and Constmcfioion of Core<br />

Irradiation-Specimen Array for MSRE Rum 49 arid 20,<br />

ORSL-TM-2443 (Dec. 22, 1969).<br />

4. S. S. Kirslis, F. F. Blankenship, and L. L.<br />

Fairchild, ”Fission Product Deposition on the Fifth Set<br />

of Graphite and Hastelloy-N Samples from the MSRE<br />

Core,” MSR Program Semiannu. Progr. Rep. A~4g. 31,<br />

1970, <strong>ORNL</strong>4622, pp. 68-90.<br />

5. R. J. KedlI Fluid Dynamic Studies of the Molten-<br />

Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) Core, <strong>ORNL</strong>-<br />

TM-3229 (Nov. 19, 1970).<br />

6. 3. R. Engel and P. N. Haubenreich. Temperatures<br />

in the MSRE Core during SteudyState Bower Operation.<br />

QRNL-TM-378 (Nov. 5, 19629.<br />

7. R. H. Perry, C. H. Chilton, and S. B. Kirkpatrick,<br />

eds., Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw-<br />

Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1963, p. 5 -21.<br />

8. W. C. Yee, A Study of the Ejyects of Fission<br />

Fragment Recoils on the Oxidation of Zirconium,<br />

OKNL-2742, Appendix C (April 1960).<br />

9. E. L. Compere and S. S. Kirslis, “Cesium Isotope<br />

Migration in MSRE Graphite,” MSR Program Semiannu.<br />

Progr. Rep. Aug. 34, 1971, QRNL4728, pp.<br />

51-54.<br />

10. K. B. Evans III, J. L. Rutherford, and R. B.<br />

Perez, “Recoil of Fission Products, 11. In Heterogeneous<br />

Carbon Structures,” J. Appi. Phys. 39, 3253-67<br />

(1968).<br />

11. A. P. Malinauskas, J. L. Rutherford, and R. B.<br />

Evans 111. Gas Transport in MSRE Moderator Grizphite,


1. Review of Theory and Counter Dij$iusion Experiments,<br />

BRNL-4148 (September 1967).<br />

12. R. B. Evans 111, J. L. Rutherford, and A. P.<br />

Maiinauskas, Gas Transport in MSRB Moderator<br />

Graphite, 11. Effects o f Impregnation, 111. Variation of<br />

Flow Properties, ORWL-4389 (May 1969).<br />

13. R. J. Ked. A Model for Cotnputi~2g the lWigratioii<br />

of Very Short-Lived Noble Gases into MSRE Graphite,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-TM-I810 (July 1967).<br />

14. R. L. Macklin. J. H. Gibbons. E. Ricci. T. M.<br />

Handley, and D. R. glunec~~ “Proton Reaction Analysis<br />

for Lithium and Fluorine in MSW Graphite,” IWSR<br />

Program Semiannrd. fiogr~ Rep. Feb. 29, 1968, <strong>ORNL</strong>-<br />

4254, pp. 119-27.<br />

15. R. L. MackIin, J. B. Gibbons, and T. H. Handley,<br />

Proton Reaction Analysis for Lithium and Fluorine in<br />

Graphite. Using a Slit-Scanning Technique. BRNL-<br />

TM-2238 (July 1968).<br />

16. R. L. Macklin, J. H. Gibbons, F. I;. Blankenship.<br />

E. Rieci. T. Ea. Handley, and D. W. Guneo, “Analysis of<br />

MSRE Graphite Sample X-13 for Fluorine and<br />

Lithium,” MSR Program Semiannu. Progr. Rep. Aug<br />

31, 1968, QKNL-4344, pp. 14-50.<br />

\.>


91<br />

10. EXAMINATION OF OFF-GAS SYSTEM ~ ~ OR SPECIMENS M ~ O ~<br />

REMOVED PRIOR TO FINAL SHU'FDfbW<br />

The off-gas from the pump bowl carried some salt<br />

mist, gaseous fission products, and oil vapors. On a few<br />

occasions, restrictions to flow developed, and in replac-<br />

ing the component or removing the plugging substance,<br />

samples could be obtained which provide some insight<br />

into the nature of the fission product burden of the<br />

off-gas. In addition, a special set of specimens was<br />

installed in the "jumper line" flange near the pump<br />

bowl after run 14 and was examined after run 18.<br />

IO. 1 Examination of Particle Trap<br />

Removed after Run 7<br />

The Mark I particle trap,* which replaced the filter in<br />

off-gas line 52% just upstream of the reactor pressure<br />

control valve, was installed in April 1966, following<br />

plugging difficulties experienced in February and March<br />

1964. It was repiaced by one of similar design in<br />

September 1966. permitting its examination. The ori-<br />

ginal plugging problems were attributed to polymeliza-<br />

tion of oil vapors originating in the entry into the pump<br />

bowl of a few grams of lubricating oil per day.<br />

The particle trap accepted off-gas about 1 hr flow<br />

downstream from the pump bowl. Figure 18.1 shows<br />

the arrangement of materials in the trap. The incoming<br />

stream impinged on stainless steel mesh and then passed<br />

through coarse (1.4 p) and fine (0.1 1.1) felt metal filters.<br />

The stream then passed through a bed of Fiberfrax and<br />

finally out into a separate charcoal bed before continu-<br />

ing down the off-gas lines to the main charcoal beds.<br />

FINE METALLIC FKTER<br />

COARSE METALLIC FILTER<br />

LOWER WELD a. SAMPLE 97 "A'~-~\ '\, r<br />

Black deposits were found can the Yorkmesh at the<br />

end of the entry pipe, as seen in Fig. 10.2. The mesh<br />

metal was heavily carburized, indicating operating<br />

temperatures of at least 1200°F (the gas stream at this<br />

point was much cooler). The radiation level in some<br />

parts of this region was about B0,008 PJbr for a probe<br />

in the inlet tube.<br />

In addition to an undetermined mount of metal<br />

mesh wire, a sample of the matted deposit showed 35%<br />

weight loss on heating to 600°C (organic vapor), with a<br />

carbon content of 9%.<br />

Mass spectrographic analysis showed 20 wt % Ba, 15<br />

wt 5% Sr, Q.2 wt $4 PI, and only 8.01 wt % Be and 0.05<br />

wt % Zr, indicating that much of the deposit was<br />

daughters of noble-gas fission products and relatively<br />

little was entrained salt.<br />

Gamma-ray spectrometry indicated the presence of<br />

137Csp "Sr, Io3Ru or "'Ru, 'lomAg, "Nb, md<br />

40 h. Lack of quantitative data precludes a detailed<br />

consideration of mechanisms. However, much of the<br />

deposit appears to be the polymerization products of<br />

oil. Salt mist was in this case largely absent, and the<br />

fission products listed above are daughters of noble<br />

gases or are noble metals such as were found deposited<br />

on specimens inserted in the pump bowl. One consistent<br />

model might be the collection of the noble-metai<br />

nuclides. on carbonaceous Inaterid (soot?) entrained in<br />

the pump bowl in the fuel salt and discharged from<br />

there into the purge gas; such a soot could also adsorb<br />

the daughters of the noble gases as it existed as an<br />

FIBERFRBX<br />

(LONG FIBER)--,<br />

..- A>.--.-<br />

. -A* ,.&a-<br />

Fig. 10.1 MSRE off-gas gutisle trap.<br />

\<br />

ORML-DWG 66-11444ff<br />

/THERMOCOUPLE (TY PI<br />

---<br />

---


aerosol in the off-gas. Particles of appropriate size,<br />

density, and charge could remain gas-borne but be<br />

removed by impingement on an oily metal sponge.<br />

Altl~ough the filtering efficiency was progressively<br />

better as the gas proceeded through the trap, by far the<br />

greatest activity was indicated to be in the impingement<br />

deposit, indicating that most of the nongas activity<br />

reaching this point was accumulated there (equivalent<br />

to about 1000 full-power hours of reactor operation)<br />

and that the impinging aerosol had good collecting<br />

power for the daughters of the noble gases. The aerosol<br />

would have to be fairly stable to reach this point<br />

without depositing on walls, which implies certain<br />

limits as to size and charge. Evidently the amounts of<br />

noble metals carried must be much less than the<br />

amounts of daughters of noble gases (barium, stron-<br />

tium) formed after leaving the pump bowl. Barium-138<br />

92<br />

Fig. 10.2. Deposits in particle trap Yorkmesh.<br />

(about 6% chain yieId: 17-Rain Xe + 32-min Cs -+ stable<br />

Bra) comprises most of the long-lived stable barium.<br />

Thus it appears that if the amounts of noble metals<br />

detected by mass spectrometry were smdl enough,<br />

relative to barium, lo be unreported, the proportions of<br />

noble metals borne by off-gas must be small: although<br />

real. No difficulties were experienced with the particle<br />

trap inserted in September 1966, and it has not been<br />

removed from the system.<br />

10.2 Examination of OE-Gas Jumper<br />

Line Removed after Run 14<br />

After the shutdown of MSRE run 14, a section of<br />

off-gas line, the jumper section of line 522, was<br />

removed for examination.' This line, a 3-ft section of<br />

1/2 -in.-ID open convolution flexible hose fabricated of


type 304 stainless steel with O-ring flanges on each end,<br />

was located about 2 ft downstream from the pump<br />

bowl. The upstream flange was a side-entering flange<br />

which attaches to the vertical line leaving the pump<br />

bowl, while the downstream flange was a top-entering<br />

flange which attaches to the widened holdup line. The<br />

jumper discussed here, the third used in the MSRE, was<br />

installed prior to run IO, which began in December<br />

1966.<br />

After the shutdown, the jumper section was transferred<br />

to the High Radiation Level Examination Laboratory<br />

for cutup and examination. Two flexible-shaft<br />

tools used to probe the line leading to the pump bowl<br />

were also obtained for examination. On opening the<br />

container an appreciable rise in hot-cell off-gas activity<br />

was noted, most of it passing the cell filters and being<br />

retained by the building charcoal trap. As the jumper<br />

section was removed from the container and pIaced OR<br />

fresh blotter paper. some dust fell from the upstream<br />

flange. This dust was recovered, and a possibly larger<br />

amount was obtained from the flange face using a<br />

camel'shair brush. The powder looked like soot; it fell<br />

but drifted somewhat in the moving air of the cell, as if<br />

it were a heavy dust. A sample weighing approxiniately<br />

8 nig read about 80 R/hr at "cuntact." The downstream<br />

flange was tapped and brushed over a sheet of paper,<br />

and similar quantities of black powder were obtained<br />

from it. A sample wcighing approximately 15 mg read<br />

about 200 R/hr at contact. Chemical and radiochemical<br />

analyses of these dust samples are given later.<br />

fie flanges each appeared to have a smooth, dullblack<br />

film remaining on them but no other deposits of<br />

significance (Fig. 10.3). Some unidentified bright flecks<br />

were seen in or on the surface of the upstream flange.<br />

Me~e the black film was gently scratched. bright metal<br />

shuwe d through.<br />

Shoat sections of the jumper-line hose (Fig. 10.4)<br />

were taken from each end, examined microscopically,<br />

and submitted for chemical and radiochemical analysis.<br />

Except for rather thin, dull-black films, which smoothly<br />

covered all surfaces including the convolutions, no<br />

deposits, attack, or other effects were seen.<br />

Each of the flexibIe probe tools was observed to be<br />

covered with blackish, pasty. granular niaterial (Fig.<br />

10.5). This material was identified by x ray as fuel-salt<br />

particles. Chemical and radiochemical analyses of the<br />

tools wit1 be presented later.<br />

Electron microscope photographs (Fig. 10.6) taken of<br />

the upstream dust showed rclatively solid particles of<br />

the order of a micron or more in dimension: surrounded<br />

by a material of lighter and different structure which<br />

appeared to be amorphous carbon; electron diffraction<br />

lines for graphite were not evident.<br />

93<br />

An upstream I-in. section of the jumper line near the<br />

flange read 150 R/hr at contact; a sianrlar section near<br />

the downstream flange read 350 R/hr.<br />

10.2.1 Chemical andysis. Portions of the upstream<br />

and downstream powders were analyzed chemically for<br />

carbon and spectrographically for lithium, beryllium,<br />

zirconium, and other cations. ~n addition, z35U was<br />

determined by neutron activation analysis; this could be<br />

converted to total uranium by using the enrichment of<br />

the uranium in the MSRE fuel salt, which was about<br />

33%.<br />

Results of these analyses are shown in Table 10.1.<br />

Analyses of the dust samples show 12 to 16% carbon,<br />

28 to 54% fuel salt, and 4% structural metals. Based on<br />

activity data, fission products could have amounted to<br />

2 to 3% of the sample weight. Thereby 53 tu 22% of<br />

the sample weight was not accounted for in these<br />

categories or spectrographically as other metals. The<br />

discrepancies may have resulted from the small amounts<br />

of sample available. The sample did not lose weight<br />

under a heat lamp and thus did not contain readily<br />

volatile substances .<br />

10.2.2 Radiochemical analysis. Radiochemical analy-<br />

ses were obtained for the noble-metal isotopes ' Wg,<br />

lo6Ru, 'oaRu, "'ha~,and'~Nb;for~~'r;fortlerare<br />

earths 7PJd, '"Ce, and ' 4' Ce: for the daughters of<br />

the fission gases krypton and xenon: 91 Y, "Sr, "Sr,<br />

40Ba, and ' 7Cs; and for the tellurium isotopes<br />

' Te, Te, and I (tellurium daughter). These<br />

analyses were obtained on samples of dust from<br />

upstream and downstream flanges, on the approxi-<br />

mately 1-in. sections of flexible hose Cut near the<br />

flanges, and on the first flexible-shaft tool used to<br />

probe the pump off-gas exit line.<br />

Data obtained in the examination are shown in Table<br />

10.2, along with ratios to inventory.<br />

It appeared reasonable to compare the dust recovered<br />

from the upstream or downstream regions with the<br />

deposited material on the hose in that region; this was<br />

done for each substance by dividing the amount<br />

deposited by the amount found in 1 g of the associated<br />

dust.<br />

Values for the inlet region were reasonably consistent<br />

for all classes of nuclides, indicating that the deposits<br />

could be regarded as deposited dust. The median value<br />

of about 0.004 g/cm indicates that the deposits in the<br />

inlet region corresponded to this amount of dust. A<br />

similar argument may be made with respect to the<br />

downstream hose and outlet dust, which appeared to be<br />

of about the same material, with the median indicating<br />

about 0.016 g/cm. Ratios of outlet and inlet dust values<br />

had a median of 1.5, indicating no great difference<br />

between the two dust samples.


94<br />

Fig. 10.3. Deposits on jumper line flanges after r~lp 14.<br />

PHOTO (856 - 74


95<br />

R - 42973<br />

Fig. 10.4. Sections OP of€-g-gat; jumper line flexible tubing and outlet tube after run 14.


Li<br />

Be<br />

2r<br />

LiF<br />

BeF<br />

ZrF,<br />

23SU<br />

UF, (total)<br />

Carbon<br />

Fe<br />

Cr<br />

Ni<br />

Mo<br />

AI<br />

CU<br />

FPs (max)"<br />

96<br />

T~ble 10.1. Analysis ~f dust from MSRE off-gas jumper line<br />

Inlet Flange (wt %) Outlet Flange (wt SC)<br />

__<br />

hs Determined Constituent As Determined Constituent<br />

3.4<br />

1.7<br />

2.74<br />

0.358<br />

10-14<br />

12.6<br />

8.9<br />

12<br />

("2)<br />

5.0<br />

1.4<br />

2<br />

1<br />

0.4<br />

1<br />

0.1<br />

7.3<br />

4.2<br />

1.4<br />

0.596<br />

15-17<br />

Total found 47 78<br />

shssumes chain deposition rate constant throughout power history (includes only chains determined).<br />

29.1<br />

21.9<br />

2.6<br />

2.4<br />

16<br />

(4.5)<br />

( *" 3 )<br />

.,..... . -..- . . , ..? ..


~<br />

Sample<br />

Element or<br />

Isotope<br />

t C<br />

1/2<br />

Element<br />

Li<br />

Be<br />

Zr<br />

2 3 5 ~<br />

C<br />

Isotope<br />

111 Ag<br />

0 6Hu<br />

103RU<br />

9 ~ o<br />

9 .SNb<br />

952,<br />

147Nd<br />

144~e<br />

14’ce<br />

91Y<br />

40~a<br />

8%<br />

137cs<br />

”Sr<br />

2Te<br />

1 29mTe<br />

1311<br />

~<br />

7.6 d<br />

365 d<br />

39.7 d<br />

67 hr<br />

35 d<br />

65 d<br />

11.1 d<br />

285 d<br />

33 d<br />

58 d<br />

12.8 d<br />

50.5 yr<br />

29.2 yr<br />

28 yr<br />

78 hr<br />

37 d<br />

8.05 d<br />

Yield‘<br />

(%)<br />

0.0181<br />

0.392<br />

2.98<br />

6.07<br />

6.26<br />

6.26<br />

2.37<br />

5.58<br />

6.44<br />

5.83<br />

6.39<br />

4.72<br />

6.03<br />

5.72<br />

4.21.<br />

0.159<br />

2.93<br />

Table 10.2. Relative quantities of ekments and isotopes found in ~ ff-g~ jumper line“’ ’<br />

Inlet Dust Outlet Dust Upstream Hose Downstream Hose Flexible Tool ’ISRE lnveneory<br />

(Per E)<br />

(Pep g) (per ft) (per ft) (total)<br />

Decay Rate<br />

(10 dislrnin)<br />

-~<br />

0.066<br />

0.057<br />

0.054<br />

0,050<br />

23<br />

‘“31<br />

10<br />

5.7<br />

2.8<br />

0.54<br />

-0,013<br />


Fig. 10.5. Deposit on flexible probe.<br />

98<br />

The electron microscope photographs of dust showed<br />

a number of fragments 1 to 4 6-1 in width with sharp<br />

edges and many small pieces 0.1 to 0.3 p in width<br />

(IOOQ a to 3000 A).<br />

The inventory values used in these calculations<br />

represent accumulations over the entire power history<br />

(tz to); the more appropriate value would of course<br />

be for the operating period (t2 f1 ) only:<br />

Jr2-to =IttZ tI +ltl-ro ex^ [-Ntz - till .<br />

The second term, representing the effect of prior<br />

accumulation, is important only when values of X(t2 -<br />

r,) are suitably low (less than 1). SO, except for<br />

364-day Io6Ru, 2-year '"Sb, 30-year "'Sr, and<br />

36-year "Cs, correction is not particularly significant.<br />

We shall frequently use the approach<br />

ObS - QbS inv. (total)<br />

x<br />

inv. (present pepid) inv. (total) inv. (present period) '<br />

where<br />

If the prior inventory were relatively small,<br />

or the present period relatively long with respect to<br />

half-life, Act2 - tl ) 3 1, then the ratio<br />

'totalli"v.(present period)<br />

approaches 1. It can never exceed the ratio<br />

EFPHtotd@FPH(total after prior period) .<br />

(EFPH is accumulated effective full-power hours.)<br />

Examination of the data in terms of mechanisms will<br />

be done later in the section.<br />

At the end of run 16 a restriction existed in the<br />

off-gas line (line 522) near the pump, vvhich had<br />

developed since the line was reamed after run 14."' To<br />

Li<br />

L-.,


clear the line and recover some of the material for The isotopes "Sr and ?Cs, which have noble-gas<br />

examination, a reaming tool with a liolbw core was precursors with half-lives of 3 to 4 min, are present in<br />

attached to flexible metal tubing. This was attached to significantly greater proportions, consistent with a<br />

a "May pack" case and thence to a vacuum pump mode of transport other than by salt particles.<br />

vented into the off-gas system. The bfay pack case held The "noble-metal" isotopes 95"b, "Mo, "Ru, and<br />

several screens of varied aperture and a filter paper. The mTe were present in even greater proportions,<br />

specialized absorbers normally a part of the May pack indicating that they were transported more vigorously<br />

assembly were not used.<br />

than fuel salt. Comparison with inventory is StKai&hht-<br />

The tool satisfactorily opened the off-gas line. A small forward in the case of 2.79-day 99Mo and 34-day<br />

amount of blackish dust was recovered on the filter<br />

paper and from the flexible tubing.<br />

'29mTe, since much of the inventory was formed in<br />

runs 15 and 16. In the case of 364-day ' Rut although<br />

Analysis of the residue on the filter paper is shown in a major part of the run 14 material remains undecayed,<br />

Table 10.3. The total amount of each element or salt samples during runs 15 and 16 show little to be<br />

isotope was determined and compared with the amount present in the salt; if only the "'Ru produced by<br />

of "inventory" fuel salt that should contain or had 233U fission is taken into account, the relative sample<br />

produced such a value.<br />

value is high.<br />

The constituent elements of the fuel salt appear to be The fuel processing, completed September 7, 1968,<br />

present in quantities indicating 4 to 7 mg of fuel salt on appeared also to have removed substantially all "Nb<br />

the filter paper, as do the isotopes 14'Ba3 '44Ce, and from the salt. Inventory is consequently taken as that<br />

95Zr, which usually remain with the salt. It is note- produced by decay of '§Zr from run 14 after this time<br />

worthy that 233W is in this group, indicating that it was and that produced in runs 15 and 16. Thus the<br />

transported only as a saIt constituent and that the salt "nc~ble-metal" elements appear to be present in the<br />

was largely from runs 15 and 16.<br />

naaterial removed from the off-gas line in considerably<br />

greater proportion than other materials. It wcpuld<br />

appear that they had a mode of transport different<br />

Table 10.3. Material recovered from M§RE off-gas from the first two groups above, though they may nut<br />

line after K U 16 ~<br />

Corrected to shutdown December 16, 1968<br />

have been transported all in the same way.<br />

There remains 8.05-day ' I. The examination after<br />

run 14 of the jumper section of the off-gas line found<br />

Inventory<br />

(per milligram<br />

of salt)<br />

Found<br />

appreciable I, which may have been transferred as<br />

__-~-__l__i<br />

'Iota1 Ratio tu inventory 30-hr ' mTe. In the present case, essentially all the<br />

I inventory came from a short period of high power<br />

Elements<br />

near the end of run 15. Near-inventory values were<br />

In milligrams<br />

found in salt sample FP 16-4, taken just prior to the<br />

end of run 16. Thus it appears that the value found here<br />

indicates little ' I transferred except as salt.<br />

Li 0.116 0.80 I<br />

Be 0.067 0.35 5<br />

Zr 0.116 0.47 4<br />

U-233 0.0067 0.0396 6<br />

Sr-89<br />

CS-1 37<br />

Ba-14(1<br />

Y-9 1<br />

Ce-144<br />

Zr-95<br />

Xb-35<br />

Ma-99<br />

Ru-106<br />

Te-129m<br />

1-131<br />

Pissiam prodwts<br />

In disintegrations per minute<br />

2.9E4<br />

4.1F6<br />

4.1E6<br />

5.2E6<br />

4.1E7<br />

7.4E6<br />

9.4E6'<br />

3.1E4<br />

2.XE6 (9.8Ef)<br />

2.3E4<br />

9.8E4<br />

3.13E8<br />

4.31EIf<br />

I.47Eb<br />

1.2r.8<br />

1.48B8<br />

3.08E7<br />

1.40E9<br />

2.76E7<br />

3.51Eb<br />

9.2E7<br />

1.01E6<br />

110<br />

110<br />

8<br />

23<br />

4<br />

4<br />

15 o'<br />

900<br />

1400'<br />

4000<br />

10<br />

%ventory set to zero for fuel returned from reprocessing<br />

September 1968.<br />

10.4 Off-Gas Line Examinations after Run 18<br />

After run 18 the specimen holder installed after run<br />

14 in the jumper line outlet flange was removed, and<br />

samples were obtained.<br />

The off-gas specimens were exposed during 5818 hr<br />

to about 4748 hr with fuel circulation. during runs 15,<br />

16. 17, and 18. During this period, 2542 effective<br />

full-power hours were developed.<br />

Near the end of run 18, a plugging of the off-gas line<br />

(at the pump bowl) developed. Kestriction of this flow<br />

caused diversion of off-gas through the overflow tank,<br />

thence via line 523 to a pressure control valve assembly,<br />

and then into the 4-in. piping of line 522. These valves<br />

can be closed when it is desired to blow the accumu-


lated overflow salt back into the pump bowl, but are<br />

normally open. A flow restriction also developed in line<br />

523 near the end of run 18, and the valve assembly was<br />

removed for examination.<br />

Data obtained from both sets of examinations will be<br />

described below.<br />

The off-gas line specimen assembly was placed after<br />

run 14 in the flange connecting the jumper line exit to<br />

the entry pipe leading to the 4411. pipe section of line<br />

522. The specimen holder was made of 27 in. of<br />

'//,-in.-OD. 0.03S-inO-wall stainless steel tubing, with a<br />

flange insert disk on the upper end. Four slotted<br />

sections and one unslotted section occupied the bottom<br />

17 in. of the tube; about 8 of the upper 10 in. were<br />

contained within the '//,-in. entry pipe; dl the rest of<br />

the specimen holder tube projected downward into the<br />

4-in. pipe section. The specimen arrays included a<br />

holder for electron microscope screens, a pair of<br />

closed-end diffusion tubes, and a graphite specimen.<br />

A hot-cell photograph of the partially segmented tube<br />

after exposure is shown in Fig. 10.7. The electron<br />

microscope screens were not recovered. Data from the<br />

diffusion tubes and graphite specimen will be presented<br />

below. In addition, two sections were cut from the<br />

183-in. unslotted section, of particular interest because<br />

normally all the off-gas flow passed through this tubing.<br />

These segments of tubing were then plugged, and the<br />

exterior was carefully cleaned and leached repeatedly<br />

until the leach activity was quite low; the sections were<br />

then dissolved and the activity determined. Data from<br />

these sections are presented in Table 10.4.<br />

From the exterior of the tube, slightly above the<br />

uppel slots, a thin black flake of deposited material was<br />

recovered weighing about 283 mg. The tube, after<br />

removal of the flake, is shown in Fig. 10.8. The<br />

underlying metal was bright and did not appear to have<br />

interacted with the flake substance. Analysis of the<br />

flake is show~z in Table i0.4.<br />

The quantity per centimeter was divided by that for 1<br />

g af flake substance for each nuciide: the general<br />

agreement of values indicated that they were doubtless<br />

froan the same source and that the deposit intensities on<br />

the two sections were about 1 and 6 mg/cm respectively<br />

(based on median ratio values). These values will be<br />

referred to later. Observed values are also shown for<br />

deposits on the upstream handling "bail."<br />

Data were a h obtained for fission product deposition<br />

on the graphite specimen (narrow and wide facesj<br />

and on consecutive dissolved 1-in. scrubbed segments of<br />

'I8-in.- and '&/,-in.-l[B diffusion tubes closed on the upper<br />

ends. The upper parts of these tubes contained packed<br />

sections of the granular absorbents AI2 O3 and NaF.<br />

Data on these specimens are shown in Table 10.5. As<br />

useful models for examination of the data have not<br />

Fig. 10.7. Off-gas line specimen holder as segmented after removal, following run 18.


__ -... .-<br />

Inventorya<br />

per gram<br />

of salt<br />

Ii 113 2.89<br />

Be 67.6 7.11<br />

zr c<br />

U-233 6.7 0.517<br />

sr-89 1.332611<br />

Y-91 1.206Ell<br />

h-140 1.534EI 1<br />

es-a 37 5.45OE9<br />

CR-141 2El I<br />

Cc-144 6.109ElO<br />

Nd-147 -5EI 1<br />

zr-95 1.254Ell<br />

m-9.5 8.92OElO<br />

Ku-l 03 4.495ElO<br />

Ru-B 06 3.464ElO<br />

‘I-e-1 29 1.872610<br />

I-131 8.OElO<br />

Table BOA. Data on samples OH segments from off-gas line specimen holder removed following run 18<br />

---..-<br />

Flake Tube section<br />

.._-_-.-<br />

1<br />

..,_. _L__ _ _.<br />

Tube section 2<br />

Amount Ratio to inventory Amount per Ratio to MSRE Ratio to Amount per Ratio to MSRE Ratio to<br />

per gram for 1 g of salt centimeter total inventory 1 g of flake centimeter total inventory 1 g of flake<br />

0.026<br />

0.105<br />

0.078<br />

1.8E12 13<br />

8.8E9 0.07<br />

6.4E9 0.04<br />

2.8EIO 5<br />

FLOE6 0.00004<br />

5.4E7 0.0009<br />

1.6E9 0.03<br />

1.6E8 0.0012<br />

1.4Ell 1.6<br />

1.2Ell 2.7<br />

2.5ElO 7<br />

2.3ElO 1.2<br />

ElWllClatS<br />

In milligrams<br />

CO.016 3.2E-11


Inventory for<br />

Nuclide 1 g of salt<br />

(dis min-l g-l)<br />

sr-89<br />

Y-9 1<br />

Ba-140<br />

CS-137<br />

(3-144<br />

zr-95<br />

Nb-95<br />

Ru-103<br />

Ru-106<br />

Sh-125<br />

Te-I29<br />

1.3E11<br />

1.2E11<br />

I.SEl1<br />

5.4E9<br />

6.1E10<br />

I .3Et I<br />

8.9E10<br />

4.5ElO<br />

3.5E9<br />

2.9E8<br />

1.9E10<br />

Table 10.5. Specimens exposed in MSRE off-gas line, runs 15-18<br />

Radioactivity on<br />

graphite specimen ~<br />

Radioactivity on '/&.-ID<br />

__......<br />

diffusion tube (dis/min) Radioactivity on 'h-in.-ID diffusion tube (disimin)<br />

- -. .<br />

(dis min-l cm12) Bottom<br />

-<br />

inch<br />

Wide face Narrow face<br />

Second<br />

inch<br />

Third<br />

inch<br />

Fourth<br />

inch<br />

A1203<br />

granules<br />

NaF<br />

granules<br />

Second<br />

inch<br />

Third<br />

inch<br />

Fourth<br />

inch<br />

A12Q3<br />

granules<br />

NaF<br />

granules<br />

3.6E11<br />

l.lE9<br />

3.5E10<br />

4.4E9<br />

1.2E6<br />

5.3B6<br />

2.8E7<br />

I. .SEI<br />

3.5E7<br />

8.SB4<br />

3.3B7<br />

4.4E10<br />

4.4ET<br />

6.2E8<br />

5.2E5<br />

6.7ES<br />

a<br />

l.lE6<br />

1.3E7<br />

3.7E.5<br />

3.QE8<br />

7.9B6<br />

3.3E7<br />

l.lE7<br />

2.4E7<br />

2.5E7<br />

1.4E8<br />

1.5E8<br />

1.3E9<br />


104<br />

Fa- 48664<br />

Fig. 10.8. Section of off-gas Bine specimen holder showing flaked deposit, removed after K U 18. ~<br />

been found, these data will not be considered further<br />

here.<br />

10.5 Examination of Valve Assembly<br />

from Line 523 after Run 18<br />

The overflow h e from the pump bowl opens at<br />

about the spray baffle, descends vertically, spirals<br />

around the suction line below the pump bowl, then<br />

passes through the top of the toroidal overflow tank,<br />

and terminates near the bottom of the lank. Gas may<br />

pass through this line if no salt covers the exit into the<br />

overflow tank or if the pressure is sufficient (due ts<br />

clogging of regular off-gas Bines, etc.) to cause bubbling<br />

through any salt that is present.<br />

In addition, helium (about 0.7 std liter/min) flows in<br />

through two bubblers to measure the liquid level. Gas<br />

from these bubblers, along with any off-gds flow, will<br />

pass through line 523 to enter the 4-in.-diam part of the<br />

main off-gas line 522.<br />

From time to time the salt accumulated in the<br />

overflow tank was returned to the pump bowl. This was<br />

accomplished by closing a control valve in line 523<br />

between the overflow tank and the entry point into h e<br />

522. The entry of the bubbler gas pressurized the<br />

overflow tank until return of the accumulated salt to<br />

the pump bowl permitted the gas to pass into the pump<br />

bowl; the control valve was then reopened.<br />

Near the end of run 18, clogging of line 523, which<br />

had been carrying most of the off-gas flow for several<br />

weeks, was experienced. This was attributed to plugging<br />

in the valve assembly, and after shutdown the assembly<br />

was replaced. The removed equipment was transported<br />

to the High Radiation Level Examination Laboratory,<br />

where it was segmented for examination.<br />

The vertical 'j2-in. entry and exit lines to the valve<br />

assembly were spaced about 39 in. apart. terminating in<br />

O-ring flanges. Following the entry flange the line<br />

continued upward. across, and downward to the entry<br />

port of the automatic control valve HCV-523. Gas flow,<br />

proceeded past the plunger into the cylinder containing<br />

the bellows plunger seal and upward into Gshaped exit<br />

holes in the flange, leaving the valve flange horizontally.<br />

Curved piping then led to a manual valve (V-523).<br />

normally open, which was entered upward. The hori-<br />

zontal exit pipe from this valve curved upward and then<br />

downward to the exit flange.<br />

Examination of HCV-523 did not reveal an obstruc-<br />

tion to flow. 41 surfaces were covered with sootlike<br />

deposits over bright metal; samples of this were<br />

recovered. Some samples of black dust were obtained<br />

from sections of the line between the two valves.<br />

111 the norndy open V-523 the exit Wow was<br />

downward. A blob ti€ rounded black substance (about<br />

the size of a small pea) was found covering the exit


lnventory<br />

for 1 g<br />

of fuel salt<br />

Li 116<br />

Be 67<br />

u 6.7<br />

(% IJ-2351<br />

(% U-238)<br />

SI-89<br />

SI-90<br />

u-9 1<br />

Ba-140<br />

cs-137<br />

Ce-141<br />

(3-144<br />

Nd-147<br />

Zr-95<br />

Nb-95<br />

Ru-103<br />

Ru-1 06<br />

Ag-111<br />

Sb-125<br />

Te-129<br />

1-131<br />

1.3Ell<br />

5.4E9<br />

1.2E1 I<br />

I SE11<br />

5.5E9<br />

1.9EI 1<br />

6.1Ei0<br />

5.4b10<br />

1.3E11<br />

8.9E10<br />

4.5E10<br />

3.5E9<br />

6.7E8<br />

2.9E38<br />

8.3B9<br />

8.IElO<br />

Table 10.6. Analysis of deposits from line 523 (undetermined quantity)<br />

Expressed as equivalent grains of inventory salt<br />

Ratio of observed value to that for 1 g of inventorv salt<br />

___<br />

HCV-5 23<br />

Line<br />

I.each Dust Dust Dust Dust Dust<br />

0.080<br />

1.5<br />

0.54<br />

12<br />


and appreciably higher than the salt-seeking substances<br />

(Ei, ~ e 95~r, , I4'ce, I4'ce, a47~d, OB^. etc.).<br />

Silver-1 11 was quite high! Antimony-125 and 29m Te<br />

were quite high. Iodine-131 was lower than r2smTe in<br />

each sample. On bdance the pattern is not much<br />

different than that seen for other deposits from the gas<br />

phase, wherever obtained. The absolute quantities were<br />

not really very large, and no analysis would have been<br />

called for had not the plugging that developed during<br />

the use of this line fur off-gas flow required removal.<br />

10.6 The Estimation of Flowing Aerosol<br />

Concentrations from Deposits on Conduit Wails<br />

We can observe the amounts of activity or mass<br />

deposited on off-gas line surfaces. To find out what this<br />

can tell us about MSRE off-gas behavior, we must<br />

consider the relevant mechanics of aerosol deposition.<br />

We will obtain a relation between the arrioiint entering<br />

a conduit and the amount depositing on a given<br />

surface segment by either diffusional or thermophoretic<br />

mechanisms. The accumulation of such deposits over<br />

extended operating periods will then be related to<br />

observable mass or activity in terms of inventory values,<br />

fraction to off-gas, etc.<br />

Diffusion coefficients of aerosol particles are calculated<br />

using the Einstein-Stokes-~unnin~am equation.'<br />

106<br />

where I is the mean free path, r the particle radius, and<br />

Q the viscosity of the gas.<br />

The viscosity of helium6 is q = 4.23 X 10-6TTr.5/<br />

(P.826 - 0.409).<br />

bameter of ~<br />

At a pressure of 5 psig and assuming a helium<br />

collision diameter (u) of 2.2 the mean free path is<br />

calculated from the usual formula:<br />

1<br />

2 = -_____<br />

n(2)112 ?I52<br />

where IZ is the number of atom per cubic centimeter.<br />

values calculated for the diffusion coefficient of<br />

particles of various dianieters in 5 psig of Iielium are<br />

shown in Table 10.7.<br />

10.6.1 Deposition by diffusion. The deposition of<br />

aerosols on conduit walls frunr an isothermal gas<br />

stream in laminar flow is the result of particle<br />

diffusion and follows the Townsend equation,7 ,8 which<br />

is of the form<br />

where n is the concentration of gas-borne particles at a<br />

distance X from the entrance and Q is the volumetric<br />

flow rate. The coefficients aE and b, are numerical<br />

calculated constants.<br />

The derivative gives the amount deposited on unit<br />

length (n,) in terms of the amount entering the conduit,<br />

no :<br />

Values of the coefficients are:<br />

T&Ie 10.9. Diffusion coefficient of particles in 5 pig of helinrn<br />

1 'i hi<br />

1 0.819 11.488<br />

2 0.097 70 .O1 0<br />

3 0.032 178.91<br />

4 0.0157 338.0<br />

~ifiusion coefficient (cm2/seci At temperature of -<br />

~ ~ -~<br />

~. -<br />

particle (A) 923°K 873°K 533°K 443°K 433°K<br />

3<br />

10<br />

30<br />

100<br />

3 00<br />

1,000<br />

1.900<br />

3.000<br />

10,000<br />

311,000<br />

5.250<br />

4.73B 1<br />

5.26E-2<br />

4.14E-3<br />

5.31E 4<br />

4.90E -5<br />

1.74E-5<br />

5.89B-6<br />

4.05E- 7<br />

1.46E- 7<br />

4.880<br />

4.39E -1<br />

4.88E- 2<br />

4.405; 3<br />

4.93E 4<br />

4.56E -5<br />

1.62E-5<br />

5.5 1 E-6<br />

6.70E -7<br />

I .41 E-?<br />

2.530<br />

2.28E- 1<br />

2.54E-2<br />

2.293: -3<br />

2.58B-4<br />

2.43B-5<br />

8.83E-6<br />

3.1 IE-6<br />

4.43F. 7<br />

1.08E-7<br />

2.160<br />

1.95E-1<br />

2.17E-2<br />

1.96E -3<br />

2.216-4<br />

2.09E-5<br />

9.65E-6<br />

2.43E- 6<br />

4.06E-7<br />

1.02E-4<br />

1.920<br />

1.73E 1<br />

1.93E- 2<br />

1.74F-3<br />

1.Y7F 4<br />

1.84E 5<br />

6.89E -6<br />

2.48F 6<br />

3.81E 7<br />

9.75B 8<br />

'


ha&<br />

For suitably short distance [Le,, X < 0.01 (Q/Db,)f<br />

the exponential factors approach unity, and we may<br />

write<br />

B<br />

ns =no --X 27.<br />

e<br />

This is valid in our case for particfes above 1000 a at<br />

distances below about 2 m.<br />

As a point for later reference, in the case of particles<br />

of 1700 A in 523°K gas flowing at 3300 std an3 of<br />

helium per minute and 5 psig,<br />

10.6.2 Deposition by thermophoresis. Because the<br />

gas leaving the pump bowl (at about 650°C) was<br />

cooled considerably (temperature below 500°F in<br />

the jumper legion). the heat loss through the con-<br />

duit walls implies an appreciable radidl tenrpeiature<br />

gradient. A temperature gradient in an aerosol results in<br />

a thermally driven Brownian motion toward the cooler<br />

region, called thermophoresis. This effect. for example,<br />

causes deposition of sod on lamp chimney waIls. The<br />

velocity of particles smaller than the mean free path is<br />

independent of size or composition. At diameters<br />

somewhat greater than the mean free path, particle<br />

velocities are again independent of diameter but are<br />

diminished if the thermal conductivity of the particle is<br />

much greater than the gas. (The effect of thermal<br />

conductivity is not appreciable in our case.)<br />

For particles in helium the radial velocity is given as<br />

The radial heat transfer conditions determine both<br />

die internal radial gradient and also the axial tempera-<br />

ture decrease for given flow conditions. Simple stepwise<br />

models can be set up and deposition characteristics<br />

calculated. One such model assumed -iii.-ID conduit<br />

(l-in~-OD), slow slug flow at 3300 std cm3/min and 5<br />

psig, with about 50 W of beta heat per liter in the gas,<br />

an arbitray wall conductance, and horizontal tube<br />

convective loss to a GO'C ambient. With a 650°C inlet<br />

temperature we found the values given in Table 10.8.<br />

We probably do not know the conditions affecting heat<br />

loss too much better than this, which is believed to be<br />

reasonably representative of the MSRE conditions.<br />

It is evident that for particles of siLes above about<br />

100 the thermophoretic effect was dominant in<br />

107<br />

Table 10.8. Thelrrnophoretic deposition parameters<br />

estimated for off-gas line<br />

____-~ ____<br />

__I___<br />

10 544 0.86 1.2 x 10-<br />

50 306 (1.58 3.9 x<br />

100 191 0.46 1.6 x<br />

150 147 0.40 9.1 X IO4<br />

200 132 0.36 6.8 i: LO4<br />

producing the observed depositions (.,/no was about 6<br />

to 16 X for thermophoresis and about 3 X<br />

for diffusion of 1700-A particles).<br />

The insensitivity of thermophoresis to particle size<br />

indicates that the observed mixture of sizes could be<br />

approximately representative of that emerging in the<br />

pump bowl off-gas stream.<br />

Thus the ratio i! = nJno of deposit per unit Iength.<br />

jfS. to that entering the conduit. 110. can be estimated<br />

on a thermophoretic basis and on a diffusional basis.<br />

The thermophoretic effect is appreciably greater in the<br />

regions where the gas is cooled appreciably if particle<br />

sizes are abovz about 100 A. We will assume below that<br />

values ofZ are available.<br />

10.6.3 Rerationship between observed depositio~i<br />

and reactor loss fractions. Four patterns of deposi-<br />

tion will be described. and the lawr relating the ok-<br />

served deposition to the reactor situation will be<br />

indicated.<br />

1. Stable species in constant proportion to salt<br />

constituents follow the simple relation no = n,/Z. Thus,<br />

given a value ofZ, the total amount entering the off-gas<br />

system can be obtained from an observation of the<br />

deposit on unit length. For jumper-line situations Z is<br />

about 0.081 (within a factor of 2). Steady deposition<br />

can be assumed.<br />

2. A second situation relates to the transport of<br />

nuclides which are not retained in the salt and part of<br />

which may be transported promptly into the off-gas<br />

system, for example, the noble metals. In developing a<br />

relationship for this mechanism. we define 1,- to as the<br />

total MSRE inventory of the nuclide at time t,<br />

produced after time to. If the fraction of production<br />

which goes to off-gas is fr(OC), it may be shown that n,<br />

= Z X fr(OG) X Itpto. Inasrnuch as we have inventory<br />

values at various times,


Thus<br />

In many cases, It/Kt.- to x 1.<br />

For many of the noble metals, ns/It e IO-' to lo-' ;<br />

thereby<br />

fr(OGj < - x 10-7 .<br />

3. A third mechanism of transport is applicable to<br />

fission products which remained dissolved in salt, with<br />

some salt transported into the off-gas. either as discrete<br />

mist particles or conceivably as small amounts accumu-<br />

lated on some ultimately transported particle, possibly<br />

as the result of momentary vaporization of salt along a<br />

fission spike.<br />

If we assume a continuous transport during any<br />

interval of reactor power,<br />

and<br />

Is dC -PFy - xc<br />

dt<br />

where C is the number of atoms per gram of salt, P is<br />

reactor power, F is the number of fissions per gram at<br />

unit power in unit time, y is fission yield, W is the rate<br />

of salt transport to off-gas in gram per unit time, Z =<br />

ns/no, and E , ~<br />

is the number of atoms in unit length of<br />

deposit.<br />

From these for interval i we find:<br />

108<br />

and<br />

PFv<br />

h<br />

The equation for Cj is evidentiy simply a version of the<br />

inventory relationship. It appears possible to carry the<br />

second equation through the power history. If we take<br />

into account the lack of transport when the reactor is<br />

drained and assume that the rate of salt transported to<br />

off-gas is constant while the salt is circulating, we may<br />

write W j = Wfi, where fi = 0 when drained and 1 when<br />

circulating. Then the WZ/h term can be factored out,<br />

and the term<br />

can be obtained by computation through the power<br />

history in conjunction witli the inventory equation:<br />

The evaluation of IG(t -- to), the gas deposit<br />

inventory, has not yet been done.<br />

4. The final case considers the daughters of noble<br />

gases, insofar as they are produced by decomposition in<br />

the off-gas stream. Here the mechanism changes: The<br />

daughter atom diffuse relatively rapidly to the walls, so<br />

that to a good approximation the rate of deposition of<br />

daughter atonis on the walls is the rate of decay of<br />

xenon krypton in the adjacent gas. Thus we must, for<br />

short-lived parent atoms, define the time of flow (7)<br />

from the conduit entrance to the point (XI in question.<br />

Let<br />

where p is the gas dcnsity at the point x (at T, PI, Wis<br />

the mass inlet rate of the gas, and A is the cross-<br />

sectional area of the conduit.<br />

k.-.,<br />

. .<br />

w.. ri;" ......


\.& ;.;.$<br />

... ,: i.....<br />

We may now show that the accumulated activity of<br />

the daughter in disintegrations per minute per centi-<br />

meter at a particular point is<br />

XI 4x1 t.- hl?(X) fr@c;)1<br />

2(t--to)<br />

QCC,<br />

where fr(cSC) is the fraction of the parent production<br />

which enters the conduit and 12(t- to) is the MSRE<br />

inventory activity of the daughter for the period (t, to).<br />

Note in particular that because deposition of atoms<br />

(rather than particulates) is rapid and the daughter<br />

atoms are formed in flow, no Z factor appears here.<br />

Actually the daughter atoms of noble gases are<br />

ubiquitous in that they might deposit from the gas Onto<br />

particulate surfaces and be transported in that fashion.<br />

A major part is contained in the salt and would of<br />

course move with that. However, either of these<br />

alternative mechanisms is indicated to result in much<br />

less deposition than that which occurs by deposition<br />

from decay of a short-lived parent in the adjacent gas.<br />

We now proceed to examine some of the data<br />

presented above in the light of these relationships.<br />

10.9 Discussion of Off--Gas Line Transport<br />

10.7.1 Salt constituents and dt-seeking nuclides.<br />

The deposit data for salt constituent elements and<br />

salt-seeking nuclides can be interpreted as total amounts<br />

of salt entering the off-gas system over the period of<br />

exposure, using the equation presented earlier, no =<br />

iQZ.<br />

We have available to us the deposition per unit length<br />

on segments from the jumper-line corrugated tubing<br />

after run 14 and the specimen holder tube after run 18.<br />

The deposits presumably occurred by simple diffusion<br />

of particulates to the walls, or by thermophoresis. The<br />

therrnophoresis mechanism is over 1 OQ-fold more rapid<br />

here. For the regions under consideration, calculations<br />

indicate that within a factor of about 2, the ther-<br />

rnophoretic deposition per centimeter would be about<br />

0.001 times that entering the tube, relatively independ-<br />

ently of particle size. A similar rate could occur by<br />

diffusion alone for particles of IO0 A but electron<br />

microscope photographs showed particles 1000 to 3000<br />

A, as well as larger.<br />

However, the only way for the off-gas to have cooled<br />

to the measured levels at the jumper line requires radial<br />

temperature gradients to lose the heat, and the ther-<br />

mophoretic effect of such gradients is well established.<br />

Consequently, we conclude the thermophoretic effect<br />

must have controlled deposition in the off-gas line near<br />

the pump bowl. Thus we use a value ns/tz0 = 0.001.<br />

hnounts of &as-borne salt estimated to have entered<br />

the off-gas system are shown in Table 10.9.<br />

The deposit data for the samples within a given period<br />

are passably consistent. Using the thermophoretic depo-<br />

sition factor, the data indicate that the amounts of salt<br />

entering the off-gas system during the given periods<br />

were of the order of only a few grams.<br />

The calculation for the radioactive nuclides was<br />

crude; only the accumulation across runs 13 -14 and<br />

17--1& was considered, and this was treated as a single<br />

interval at average power, prior inventory being ne-<br />

glected. These assumptions should not introduce naajor<br />

error, however. We conclude this indicates that major<br />

quantities of particulate material did not pass beyond<br />

the jumper line into the off-gas system.<br />

About 60% of the particulate material leaving the<br />

pump bowl should be transported to the walls by<br />

thermophoresis in the first 2 m or so from the pump<br />

bowl.<br />

Diffusion alone would result in rates several hundred-<br />

fold slower (for 1700-W particles; this varies approxi-<br />

mately inversely with the square of particle diameter).<br />

Consequently, if this mechanism controlled the ob-<br />

served deposits. it would imply that considerably more<br />

particulate material left the pump bowl and passed<br />

through the jumper line.<br />

10.7.2 Daughters of noble gases. The deposit activity<br />

observed for the daughters of noble gases can be used to<br />

calculate the fraction of production of the parent noble<br />

gas which enters the off-gas system. Diffusion of<br />

daughter atoms is more rapid than thermophoresis, and<br />

deposition is assumed to occur at the same tube<br />

positions that the parent noble gas undergoes decay in<br />

the adjacent gas.<br />

Table 10.9. Grams of salt estimated to enter off-gas system<br />

Runs 10-14,9112 hr<br />

Basis of Upstream Downstream<br />

calculation hose hose<br />

Li 2.3<br />

Be 0.9<br />

Zr 0.6<br />

U-235 1.4<br />

Zr-9s 0.15<br />

(:e-141 0.2<br />

Ce-144 0.6<br />

PJ~-147 5<br />

Runs 15-18> 4748 hr<br />

Specimen Specimen<br />

holder holder<br />

tube 1 tube 2<br />

4.2 0.15 0.17<br />

1.5 0.12 0.12<br />

0.6<br />

4<br />

4 0.2 0.4<br />

0.8<br />

6<br />

43


Table 10.10. Estimated percentage of noble-gas nuclides entering the off-gas based on deposited<br />

daughter activity and ratio to theoretical value for full stripping<br />

- ~.<br />

Runs 10 -14 Runs I S19<br />

Upstream Downstream Specimen lnoEder Specimen holder<br />

Gas Daughter how hose tube 1 tube 2<br />

.._I_<br />

Percent Ratio Percent<br />

__<br />

Ratio Percent Ratio Percent Ratio<br />

191-sec Kr-89 SI-89 0.8 0.06 4.0 0.28 4 .0 0.28 5.2 0.34<br />

33-sec Kr-90 SI-90 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.19<br />

9.8-sec Kr-91 Y-9 1 0.07 1 .OQ 0.003 0.04 0.0Q4 0.06 0.004 0.06<br />

16-sec Xe-140 Ba-140 0.004 0.03 0.019 0.1 2 0.005 0.03 0.008 0.05<br />

234-sec Xe-137 CS-137 1.3 0.07 6.0 0.32 4.6 0.25 5.4 0.29<br />

The fraction of noble gas (I) entering the off-gas<br />

system is calculated from daughter (2) activity:<br />

fr(1) =<br />

obs dis min-1 cm-1) inventory total<br />

inventory total (<br />

flow rate 1<br />

~ a,<br />

area A,<br />

The values shown below were calculated assuming a<br />

flow rate of about 80 cm3/sec and a delay ( T~> of about<br />

2 sec between the pump bowl and the deposition point.<br />

MI daughter nuclides which result from fie decay ofa<br />

noble-gas isotope are assumed to remain where deposited.<br />

The indicated percentage of production entering the<br />

off-gas was compared with the amount calculated to<br />

enter the off-gas if full stripping of all of the noble-gas<br />

burden of the salt entering the pump bowl occurred,<br />

with no entrainment in the setui~a flow, no holdup in<br />

gmphite or elsewhere, etc. The results are indicated in<br />

Table 10.10. The magnitudes appear plausibfe.<br />

Most of the values for the longer-lived gases (89Kg<br />

and 7Xe> are 25 to 32% of the theoretical maximum,<br />

indicating that the net stripping was only partially<br />

complete, possibly attributable to bubble return, incomplete<br />

mass transfer, and graphite hoIdup.<br />

The ratio values far 9oKr, "Kr, and 140Xe mostly<br />

are 0.06 to 0.044; the net stripping appears to be<br />

somewhat less for these shorter-lived nuclides. Slow<br />

mass transfer from salt to gas phases could well account<br />

for both goups.<br />

10.7.3 MsMe metds. The activity of deposits of<br />

noble-metd nuclides can be used to estimate the<br />

fraction of production that entered the off-gas system.<br />

The relationship employed is<br />

__<br />

observed activity<br />

fr(off-gas) =<br />

MSRE inventory<br />

MSRE inventory 1<br />

X-- XZ'<br />

MSW period inventory<br />

where Z is again the ratio of the amount deposited per<br />

centimeter to the amount entering the off-gas system<br />

(here, of the nuclide in question). This factor as before<br />

is approximately 0.001 if the thermcaphoresis mecha-<br />

nism is dominant.<br />

The period of operation was long (runs 10 to I8<br />

extended over 388 days, runs 15 to 18 over 242 days)<br />

with respect to the half-life of most noble-metal<br />

nuclides, so that the ratio of the MSRE inventory to the<br />

MSWE period inventory is not much above unity (in the<br />

greatest case, 367-day O6 Ru. it is less than 1.1 for runs<br />

10 to 14, and for runs 15 to I8 the ratio is below 2.7,<br />

in spite of the shorter period, the longer prior period,<br />

and changes in fission yield).<br />

Table 10.1 1. Estimated fraction of noblemetal<br />

production entering off-gas system<br />

Runs 10-14<br />

Nuclide Upstream r)uwnstream<br />

hose hose<br />

Wb-95 0.000002<br />

Mo-39 0.00010<br />

Ru-103 0'00012<br />

Ru-106 0.00074<br />

Ag-1 B 1 0.00009<br />

Te-129 0.00018<br />

Te-132 0.00004<br />

1-131 0.00003<br />

Runs 15-18<br />

Specimen Specimen<br />

imer holder<br />

tube 1 tube 2<br />

0.00001 0.00003<br />

0.00160<br />

0.00130 0.00002<br />

0.00450<br />

0.0 0 2 6 0<br />

0.000005<br />

0.00120<br />

0.000 29<br />

0.00001 0.00002<br />

0.00010 0.00430 0.00002


.<br />

.. -.&& . . . . (..<br />

.<br />

111<br />

Thus, to a useful approximation, References<br />

obs activity per cm 1<br />

fr(off-gas) = X<br />

MSRE inventory Z<br />

We tabulate in Table 10.1 1 this fraction, using for Z the<br />

value of 0.001 as before.<br />

These values, of course, indicate that only negligibie<br />

amounts of noble metals entered the off-gas system.<br />

tenths to hundredths of one percent of production. We<br />

believe that the assumptions invoIved in the above<br />

estimate are acceptable and consequently that the<br />

estimates do indicate the true magnitude of’ noblemetal<br />

transport into off-gas.<br />

Obviously, the estimated values depend directly on<br />

the inverse of the deposition factor, Z. If only the<br />

diifusiori mechanism were active (which we doubt), the<br />

estimated amounts transported into the off-gas would<br />

be increased seveial hundredfold (300 X ?). Even in this<br />

situation the estimated fractions of noble metals trans-<br />

ported into the off-gas would mostly be of the order of<br />

a few percent OH less.<br />

We consequently believe that the observed activities<br />

of noble metals in off-gas line deposits indicate that<br />

only negligible, or at riiost minor. quantities of these<br />

substances were transported into the off-gas system.<br />

1. A. N. Smith, “Off-Gas Filter Assembly,” MrSw<br />

Program Seemia~intl. Progo Rep. Aug. 31, 1966, <strong>ORNL</strong>-<br />

4034, pp. 74-77.<br />

2. E. L. Compere, “Examination of MSWE Off-Gas<br />

Jumper Line,” MSR Program Semiannu. Prog. Rep.<br />

A u 31, ~ ~ 1968, OWL-4344, pp. 206 -10.<br />

3. E. L. Compere, “bxamination of Material Recovered<br />

from MSKE Off-Cas Line,” MSR Program<br />

Semiannu. Pa.ogr. Rep. F’eb. 28, 1965, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4396, pp.<br />

144 45.<br />

4. W. W. Parkinson (OHPNL Health Physics Division),<br />

“Analysis of Black Plug from Valve in MSK6,” letter to<br />

E. L. Compere (<strong>ORNL</strong> Chemical Tschnology Division),<br />

Jan. 21, 1370.<br />

5. Cited by J. W. Thomas, The Diffusion Battery<br />

Method fiw Aerosol Pmicle Size Deter’mination,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-1649 (1953): p. 48.<br />

6. C. F. Bonilla, Nuclear Engineering Handbook, ed.<br />

H. Etherington, McGraw-Hill. New Vork, 1959, p.<br />

9-25.<br />

7. C. N. Davies, ed., AwosoZ Science, Academic, Yew<br />

York, 1966.<br />

8. N. A. Fuchs, The Mechanics of Aerosols, Macrnillan,<br />

New York, 1964.


Operation of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was<br />

terminated on December 12, 1969, the salt drained, and<br />

the system placed in standby condition. In January<br />

1971 a number of segments were removed from<br />

selected components in the reactor system for exami-<br />

nation. These included a graphite bar and control rod<br />

thimble from the center of the core, tubing and a<br />

segment of the shell from the heat exchanger, and the<br />

sampler-enricher mist shield and cage from the pump<br />

bowl. The examination of these items is discussed<br />

below. It was expedient to extract parts of the original<br />

reports in preparing this summary.<br />

B 1 .I Examination of Deposits from the Mist Shield<br />

in the MSRE Fuel Pump Bowl<br />

In January 1971 the sampler cage and mist shield<br />

were excised from the MSRE fuel pump bowl by using<br />

a rotated cutting wheel to trepan the pump bowl top.'<br />

nile sample transfer tube was cut off just above the<br />

iatch stop plug penetrating the pump bowl top; the<br />

adjacent approximately 3-ft segment of tube was<br />

inadvertently dropped to the bottom of the reactor cell<br />

and could not be recovered. The final ligament attach-<br />

ing the mist shield spiral to the pump bowl top was<br />

severed with a chisel. The assembly was transported to<br />

the High kidiation Level Examination Laboratory for<br />

cutup and examination.<br />

Removal of the assembly disclosed the copper bodies<br />

of two sample capsules that had been dropped in 1967<br />

and 1968 lying on the bottom of the pump bowl. Also<br />

on the bottom of the bowl. in and around the sampler<br />

area, was a considerable amount of fairly coarse<br />

granular, porous black particles (largely black flakes<br />

about 2 to 5 rnm wide and up to 1 mm thick). Contact<br />

of the heated quartz light source in the pump bowl with<br />

this material resulted in smoke evolution and appar-<br />

ently some softening and smoothing of the surface of<br />

the accumulation.<br />

A few grams of the loose particles were recovered and<br />

transferred in a jar to the hot cells; a week later the jar<br />

was darkened enough to prevent seeing the particles<br />

through the glass. An additional quantity of this<br />

material was placed loosely in the assembly shield<br />

carrier can. Samples were submitted for analysis for<br />

carbon and for spectrographic and radiochemical analy-<br />

ses. The results are discussed below.<br />

The sampler assembly as removed from the carrier can<br />

is shown in Fig. 11 .I. All external surfaces were covered<br />

with a dark-gray to black film, apparently 0.1 mm or<br />

more in thickness. &.'here the metal of the mist shield<br />

spiral at the top had been distorted by the chisel action,<br />

black eggshell-like film had scaled off, and the bright<br />

metal below it appeared unattacked. Mere the metal<br />

had not been deformed, the film did not flake off.<br />

Scraping indicated a dense, fairly hard adherent blackish<br />

deposit.<br />

On the cage ring a soft deposit was noted. and some<br />

was scraped off; the underlying metal appeared unattacked.<br />

The heat of sun lamps used for in-cell photography<br />

caused a smoke to evolve from deposits on bottom<br />

surfaces of the ring and shield. 'This could have been<br />

material, picked up during handing, similar to that seen<br />

on the bottom of the pump bowl.<br />

At this time, samples were scraped from the top,<br />

middle, and bottom regions of the exterior of the mist<br />

shield, from inside the bottom, and from the ring. The<br />

mist shield spiral was then cut loose from the pump<br />

bowl segment, and cuts were made to lay it open using<br />

a cutoff wheel. A view of the two parts is shown in Fig.<br />

11 2.<br />

In contrast to the outside, where the changes between<br />

gas (upper half) and liquid (lower) regions. though<br />

evident, were not pronounced. on the inside the lower<br />

and upper regions differed markedly in the appearance<br />

of the deposits.<br />

In the upper region the deposits were rather similar to<br />

those outside, though perhaps more irregular. The<br />

region of overlap appeared to have the heaviest deposit<br />

in the gas region, a dark film up to I mrn thick. thickest<br />

at the top. The tendency of aerosols to deposit on<br />

cooler surfaces (thermophoresis) is called to mind. In<br />

the liquid region the deposits were considerably thicker<br />

and more irregular than elsewhere, as if formed from<br />

larger agglomerates.<br />

Hn the a~ea of overlap in the liquid region, this kind of<br />

deposit was not observed, the deposit resembling that<br />

on the outside. If we recall that flow into the mist<br />

shield was nominally upward and then outward through<br />

the spiral, the surfaces within the mist shield are<br />

evidently subject to smaller liquid shear forces than<br />

those outside or in the overlap. and the liquid was<br />

surely niore quiescent there than elsewhere. The con-<br />

ditions permit the accumulation and deposition of<br />

agglomerates.<br />

The sample cage deposits also were more even in the<br />

upper part, beconling thickest at and on the latch stop.<br />

The deposit on the latch stop was black and hard,<br />

between 1 and 2 mm thck. Deposits on the cage rods ". .....,... :y<br />

y . i;'<br />

I


113<br />

Fig 111.I. Mist shield containing sampler cage from MSRE pump bowl.<br />

below the surface (see Figs. 11.3 and 11.4) were quite<br />

irregular and lumpy and in general had a brown-tan<br />

(copper or rust) color over darker material; some<br />

whitish material was also seen. Four of the rods were<br />

scraped to recover samples of the deposited material.<br />

After a gamma-radiation survey of the cage at this time,<br />

the unscraped cage rod was cut out for metallographic<br />

examination; another rod was also cut out for more<br />

thorough scraping, segmenting, and possible leaching of<br />

the surfaces.<br />

The gamma radiation survey was conducted by<br />

lowering the cage in 1/2-in. or smaller steps past a 0.020-<br />

by 1.0411. horizontal colhating slit in 4 in. of lead.<br />

Both total radiation and gamma spectra were obtained<br />

using a sodium iodide scintillation crystal. The radiation<br />

levels were greatest in the latch stop region at the top of<br />

the cage and next in magnitude at the bottom ring.<br />

Levels along the rods were irregular but were higher in<br />

the liquid region than in the gas area even though<br />

considerable material had been scraped from four of the<br />

five rods in that region. In all regions the spectrum was<br />

predominantly that of 367-day ' Ru and 2.7year<br />

Sbt and no striking differences in the spectral shapes<br />

were noted.<br />

Analyses of samples recovered from various regions<br />

inside and outside the mist shield and sampler cage are<br />

shown in Table 11.1. The samples generally weighed<br />

between 0.1 and 0.4 g. The radiation level nf the<br />

samples was measured using an in-ce11 G-M probe at<br />

about I-in. distance and at the same distance with the<br />

sample surrounded by a '/8-in- copper shield (to absorb<br />

the 3.5-MeV beta of the 30-sec daughter of<br />

'


Fig. 11.2. Interior of mist shield. Right part of right segment overlapped left part of segment on left.


. ... . . . . . . ....<br />

.:.3j>y . .<br />

115<br />

Pig. 11.3. Sample cage and mist shield.


pig. 11.4. ~epsits on sampler cage. Ring already scraped.<br />

116<br />

' O6 Ru). Activities measured in this way ranged from 4<br />

R/hr (2 R/hr shielded) to 180 R/hr (SO R/hr shielded),<br />

the latter being on a 0.4-g sample of the deposit om the<br />

latch stop at the top of the sample cage.<br />

Spectrographic and chemical analyses are available on<br />

three samples: (1) the black lumpy materid picked up<br />

from the pump bowl bottom, 42) the deposit on the<br />

latch stop at the top of the sample cage, and (3)<br />

materid scraped-from the inside of the mist shield in<br />

the liquid region. The material recovered from the<br />

pump bowl bottom contained 7% carbon, 31%<br />

Hastelloy N metals, 3.4% Jk (18% BeF2), and 6% Li<br />

(22% LiF). Quite possibly this included some cutting<br />

debris. The carbon doubtless was a tar or soot resulting<br />

from thermal and radiolytic decomposition of lubri-<br />

cating oil leaking into the pump bowl. lit is believed that<br />

this material was jarred loose from upper parts of the<br />

pump bowl or the sample transfer tube during the chisel<br />

work to detach the mist shield.<br />

The hard deposit on the latch stop contained 28%<br />

carbon, 2.8% Be (1 1% BeF,), 2.8% lii (10% LiF)? and<br />

12% metals in approximate Hastelloy N proportions,<br />

again possibly to some extent cutting debris.<br />

The sample taken from the inner liquid region of the<br />

mist shield contained 2.5% Be (13% BeF,), 3.0% Li<br />

(11% LiF)* and 18% metals (with somewhat more<br />

chromium and iron than Wastelloy N); a carbon andysis<br />

was not obtained.<br />

In each case, about 0.5 to 1% Zr (about 1 to 2%<br />

ZrF4) was found, a level lower &an fuel salt in<br />

proportion to the lithium and beryllium. Uranium<br />

analyses were not obtainable; so we cannot clearly say<br />

whether the salt is fuel salt OK flush salt. Since fission<br />

product data suggest that the deposits built up OWF<br />

appreciable periods, we presume that it is fuel salt.<br />

In all cases the dominant Bastelloy N constituent,<br />

nickel, was the major metallic ingredient of the deposit.<br />

Only in the deposit from the mist shield inside the<br />

liquid region did die proportions of Ni, Ms, Cr, and Fe<br />

depart appreciably from the metal proper. "1 this<br />

deposit a relative excess of chromium and iron was<br />

found, which would mot be attributable to incidental<br />

metal debris from cutting operations. Ht is also possible<br />

that the various Hastelloy N elements were all subject<br />

to mas transport by salt during operation: and that<br />

little of that found resulted from cutup operation.<br />

We now come to consideration of fission product<br />

isotope data. nese data are shown in Table i1.2 for<br />

deposits scraped from a number of regions. The activity<br />

per gram of sample is shown as a fraction of MSRE<br />

inventory activity per gram of MSRE fuel salt to<br />

eliminate the effects of yield and power history; u<br />

. . . . . . . .<br />

-2s,


Sample<br />

Radiation level<br />

Weight Percent 3’r<br />

Location (;Ee;;;;.) (mg) c (dis min-‘g-l)<br />

Table 11.1. Claemicall and spectrographic analysis of deposits from mist shield in the MSWE pump bowl<br />

Percent Li Percent Be Percent Zr” Percent NiQ Percent Mo’” Percent CP Percent Fea Percent Mna<br />

Pump bowl 1W5) 402 3.1 El0 6.00 3.42 0.5-1.0 20. 30 2-4 l--2 0.5-1.0 0.Sl.Q<br />

bottom 25(12b 108 1.1<br />

Latch stop 130(60) 291 1.85 Eli 2.15 2.01 0.5-1.0 S-10 2-- 4 0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0 CO.5<br />

180(80 365 28 w<br />

Inside. 40(11) 179 4.7 El0 3.03 2.52 0.5-1.0 5-10 2 -4 3-5 2-4 co.5 z<br />

liquid<br />

region<br />

MSRE fuel 11.1 6.1 11.1<br />

(nominal)<br />

Hastelloy N 69 16 I 5 -1<br />

(nominal)<br />

‘Semiquantitative spectrographic determination.


Table I 1.2. Gamma spectrographic (Ge-diode) analysis of deposits from mist shield in the MSRE pump bowl<br />

Half-life 2.1 X 105 years 35 days<br />

(after 9523)<br />

Inventory, dis min-’ g-”<br />

Sample activity per gram expressed<br />

as fraction of MSRE inventory<br />

activity/grams fuel saItb<br />

Pump bowl bottom,<br />

loose particles<br />

ILatch stop<br />

Top<br />

Outside<br />

Inside<br />

Middle outside<br />

Below liquid surface<br />

Inside No. 1<br />

Inside No. 2<br />

Gage rod<br />

Bottom<br />

Outside<br />

hide<br />

99yc 9”Nb ‘03Ihl 106RU “‘Sb 127~1~~ ‘17cs 9529 144&<br />

24 fig/g 8.3 ElQ<br />

463<br />

39.6 days<br />

3.3 El0<br />

367 days 2.7 years 105 days 30 years 65 days<br />

3.3 E9 3.1 E8 2.0 E9 6.2 I3 9.9 El0<br />

0.23 36 52 20 17 2.1 0.13 -t 0.03<br />

265 364 1000 5.7 69 3.1 0<br />

122 167 328 104 98 9.5 0<br />

42 ?r 14 237 f 163 273 1000 69 4.3 0<br />

271 531 646 563 54 8.Q 0<br />

354 164 224 271 143 0.6 0<br />

148 292 310 72 98 1.1 0<br />

305 221 692 198 181 a.2 0<br />

(0, 401 1210 167 232 3.2 Q<br />

15 + 9 189 51 27 0.32 0<br />

‘Background values (limit ofdetection) were as follows: 95Zr, 2-9 ElO; 14”Ce, l-2 ElO; *34Cs, 2-9 E$; 1 “Ag, l-3 E9; “‘Eu, 1 Eg-2 E9.<br />

bLJncertainty stated (as f value) only when an appreciable fraction (>lO%) of observed.<br />

284 days<br />

5.9 El0<br />

(3.10<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0.13 + 0.02<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0.11


. >:*<br />

-Y<br />

-"<br />

materials concentrated in the same proportion should<br />

have similar values.<br />

We first note that the major part of these deposits<br />

does not appear to be fuel salt, as evidenced by low<br />

values of 95Zr and 44Ce. The values 0.13 and 0.1 1 for<br />

Ce average 1276, and this is to be compared with the<br />

combined 24% for LiF plus BeF, determined spectrographically,<br />

as noted above. These would agree well<br />

if fuel salt had been occluded steadily as 24% of a<br />

growing deposit throughout the operating history.<br />

For 7Cs we note that samples below liquid level<br />

inside generally are below salt inventory and could be<br />

occluded fuel salt, as considered above. For samples<br />

above the liquid level inside, or any external sample,<br />

values are two to nine times inventory for fuel salt.<br />

Enrichment from the gas phase is indicated. Houtzeel'<br />

has noted that off-gas appears to be returned to the<br />

main loop during draining, as gas from the drain tanks is<br />

displaced into a downstream region of the off-gas<br />

system. However, our deposit must have originated<br />

from something more than the gas residual in the pump<br />

bowl or off-gas lines at shutdown. An estimate substantpating<br />

this is as follows.<br />

With full stripping, 3.3 X 18'<br />

atoms of the mass 13'9<br />

chain per minute enter the pump bowl gas. About half<br />

actually go to off-gas, and most of the rest are<br />

reabsorbed into salt. If we, however, assume a fraction f<br />

is deposited evenly on the boundaries (gas boundary<br />

area about 16,000 crn2), the deposition rate would be<br />

about 2 x IO' 3f atoms of the 137 chain per square<br />

centimeter per minute. Now if in our samples the<br />

activity is I relative to inventory sait (I .4 x 10' ' atoms<br />

of 'Cs per gram) and the density is about 2, then the<br />

time t in minutes required to deposit a thickness of X<br />

centimeters would be<br />

In obtaining our samples, we generally scraped at least<br />

0.1 g from perhaps 5 em" indicating a thickness of at<br />

least about 0.81 cm, and 1 values were about 4, whence<br />

tis about 6OO/f.<br />

Thus, even if all<br />

- 1) the 137 chain entering the<br />

pump bowl entered our deposits, 600 min of flow<br />

would be required to develop their '"Cs content -<br />

too much for the 7-min holdup of the pump bowl or<br />

even the rest of the off-gas system, excluding the<br />

charcoal beds.<br />

It appears more likely that 76s atoms, from 'Xe<br />

atoms decaying in tke pump bowl, were steadily<br />

incorporated to a slight extent in a slowly growing<br />

deposit.<br />

The noble-metal fission products, 35-day 'I Nb,<br />

39.6-day ' O4 Ru. 367-day ' O6 RLI><br />

2.7-year 25 Sb, and<br />

105-day 27mTe, were strongly present in essentially<br />

all samples. In dl cases, 35-day '§i\jb was present in<br />

quantities appreciably more than could have resulted<br />

from decay of Zr in the sample.<br />

Antimony-125 appears to be strongly deposited in all<br />

regions, possibly more strongly in the upper (gas) region<br />

deposits. Qearly ' "Sb must be considered a noble-<br />

metal fission product. Tellurium-1 27rn was also found,<br />

in strong concentration. frequently in similar propor-<br />

tion to the "'Sb of the sample. 'Phe precursor of<br />

127m<br />

Te is 3.9-day ' 27Sb. It may be that earlier<br />

observations about fission product tellurium are in fact<br />

observations of precursor antimony isotope behavior,<br />

with tellurium remaining relatively Fled.<br />

The ruthenium isotopes were present in quantities<br />

comparable with those of 95h%9 '"Sb, and 127naTe.<br />

If the two ruthenium isotopes had been incorporated in<br />

the deposit soon after formation in the sdt, then they<br />

should be found in the same proportion to inventory.<br />

But if a delay or holdup occurred, then the shorter-lived<br />

Ru would be relatively richer in the holdup phase as<br />

discussed later, the activity ratio ' ' Ku/l O6 Ru would<br />

exceed the inventory ratio, and material deposited after<br />

an appreciable holdup would have an activity ratio<br />

' Ru/' Ru which would be less than the inventory<br />

vdue. Examination of Table 11.2 shows that in all<br />

samples, relatively less ' O RU was present, which<br />

indicates that the deposits were accumulated after a<br />

holdup period. This appears to be equally true for<br />

regions above and below the liquid surface. Thus we<br />

ond dude that the deposits do not anywhere represent<br />

residues of the material held up at the time of<br />

shutdown but rather were deposited over an extended<br />

period on the various surfaces from a common holdup<br />

source. Specifically this appears true for the lumpy<br />

deposits on the mist shield interior and cage rods below<br />

the liquid surface.<br />

Data for 2.1 X 105-year 99Tc are available for one<br />

sample taken from the inner mist sl&ld surface below<br />

the liquid level. n e vaiue, 1.11 x lo4 pg/g, vs<br />

inventory 24 yg/g, shows an enhanced concentration<br />

ratio sindar to our other noble-metal isotopes md<br />

dearly substantiates the view that this element is to be<br />

regarded as a noble-metal fission product. The consistency<br />

of the ratios to inventory suggests that the<br />

noble metals represent about 5% of the deposits.<br />

The quantity of noble-metal fission products held up<br />

in this pump bowl fdm may not be negligible. If we<br />

take a median value sf about 300 times inventory per<br />

gram for the deposited material, take pump bowl area<br />

i~ the gas region as 1 O,OOO cm2 (minimum), and assume


deposits 0.1 mm thick (about 0.02 g/cmz ; higher values<br />

were noted), the deposit thus would have the equivalent<br />

of the content of more than 60 kg of inventory salt.<br />

There was about 4300 kg of fuel salt; so on this basis,<br />

deposits containing about 1.4% or more of the noble<br />

metals were in the gas space. At least a sirnilar amount<br />

is estimated to be on walls, etc., below liquid level; and<br />

no account was taken for internal structure surfaces<br />

(shed roof, deflector plates, etc., or overflow pipe and<br />

tank).<br />

Since pump bowl surfaces appear to have more (about<br />

10 times) noble-metd fission products deposited on<br />

them per unit area than the surfaces of the heat<br />

exchanger, graphite, piping, surveillance specimens, etc.,<br />

we believe that some peculiarities of the pump bowl<br />

environment must have led to the enkanced deposition<br />

there.<br />

We first note that the pump bowl was the site of<br />

leakage and cracking of a few grams of Bubricating oil<br />

each day. Purge gas flow also entered here, and<br />

hydrodynamic conditions were different from the main<br />

loop.<br />

The pump bowl had a relatively hgh gas-liquid<br />

surface with higher agitation relative to such surface<br />

than was the case fOr gas retained as bubbles in the<br />

main loop. The liquid shear against walls was rather less,<br />

and deposition appeared thickest where the system was<br />

quietest (cage rods). The same material appears to have<br />

deposited in both gas and liquid regions, suggesting a<br />

common source. Such a source would appear to be the<br />

gas-liquid interfaces: bubbles in the liquid phase and<br />

droplets in the gas phase. It is krmown that surface-<br />

seeking species tend to be concentrated on droplet<br />

surfaces.<br />

The fact that gas and liquid samples obtained in<br />

capsules during operation had ' RU/' ' RU activity<br />

ratios higher than inventory and deposits discussed here<br />

had ' RuI1 ' Ru activity ratios below inventory<br />

suggests that the activity in the capsule samples was<br />

from 3 held-up phase that in time was deposited on the<br />

surfaces which we examined here.<br />

The tendency to aggIomerate and deposit in the less<br />

agitated regions suggests that the overflow tank may<br />

have been a site of heavier deposition. The pump bowl<br />

liquid which entered the overflow pipe doubtless was<br />

associated with 3 high proportion of surface, due to<br />

rising bubbles; this would serve to enhance transport to<br />

the overflow tank.<br />

The binder material for the deposits has not been<br />

established. Possibilities include tar material and per-<br />

haps structural- or noble-metal colloids. Unlikely,<br />

though not entirely excludable, contributors are oxides<br />

120<br />

formed by moisture or oxygen introduced with purge<br />

gases or in maintenance operations. The fact that the<br />

mist shield and cage were wetted by salt suggests such a<br />

possMity.<br />

11.2 Exmhation of Moderator Graphite<br />

from MSRE<br />

A complete stringer of graphite (located in an add<br />

position between the surveillance specimen assembly<br />

and the control rod thimble) was removed intact from<br />

the MSRE. TMs 64.5in.4ong specimen was transferred<br />

to the hot cells for examination, segmenting, and<br />

sampling.<br />

1 B 2.1 Results of visual examination. Careful exami-<br />

nation of dl surfaces of the stringer with a Koumorgen<br />

periscope showed the graphite to be generally in very<br />

good condition, as were the many surveillance speci-<br />

inens previously examined. The corners were clean and<br />

sharp, the faint circles left upon milling the fuel channel<br />

surfaces were visible and appeared unchanged, and the<br />

surfaces, with minor exceptions described below, were<br />

dean. "he stringer bottom, with identifying letters and<br />

numbers scratched on it, appeared identical to the<br />

photograph taken before its installation in MSm.<br />

Examination revealed a few solidified droplets of<br />

flush salt adhering to the paphite, and one small<br />

@.5-cm2) area where a grayish-white material appeared<br />

to have wetted the smooth graphite surface. One small<br />

crack was observed near the middle of a fuel channel.<br />

At the top surface of the stringer a heavy dark deposit<br />

was visible. This deposit seemed to consist in part of<br />

salt and in part of a carbonaceous material; it was<br />

sampled for both chemical and radiochemical analysis.<br />

Near the metal knob at the top of the stringer a crack in<br />

the graphite had permitted a chip (about 1 mrn thick<br />

and 2 cm2 in area) to be cleaved from the flat top<br />

surface. Ths crack may have resulted from mechanical<br />

stresses due to threading the metal knob inlo the<br />

stringer (or from thermal stresses in this metal-graphite<br />

system during operation) rather than from radiation or<br />

chemical effects.<br />

1 B -2.2 Segmenting of gaphite stringer. Upon corn-<br />

pletion of the viswal observation and photography and<br />

after removal of small samples from several locations on<br />

the surface, the stringer was sectioned with a thin<br />

Carborundum cutting wheel to provide five sections of<br />

4-in. length, three thin (10- to 28-mil) sections for x<br />

radiography, and three thicker (38- to 6O-mil) sections<br />

for pinhole scanning with the gamma spectrometer.<br />

Each set of samples contained specimens from near the<br />

top, middle, and bottom of the stringer. The large<br />

k. .&


121<br />

specimens, from which surface samples were subse- graphite stringer using a rotating milling cutter 0.619 in.<br />

quently milled, included (in addition) two samples from in diameter. The specimen was clamped flat on the bed<br />

intermediate positions.<br />

of the machine, md cuts were made from the flat<br />

11.2.3 Examination of surface samples by x-ray fuel-channel surface and from one of the narrower flat<br />

diffraction. Previous attempts to determine the chermi- edge surfaces on both sides of the fuel channel. The<br />

cal form of fission products deposited on graphite latter surfaces contacted the similar surfaces of an<br />

surveillance specimens by x-ray reflection from flat adjacent stringer in the MSWE core. After the sample<br />

surfaces failed to detect any element except graphitic was clamped in position the milBing machine was<br />

carbon. A sampling method urhicb concentrated surface operated remotely to take successive cuts 1, 2, 3, 10,<br />

impurities was tried at the suggestion of Harris Dunn of 20, 30, 245, 245, and 245 mils deep to the center of<br />

the Analytical Chemistry Division. This method in- the graphite stringer. The powdered graphite was<br />

volved lightly brushing the surFace of the graphite collected in a tared falter bottle attached to a vacuum<br />

strbger with a fie Swiss pattern fide which had a cleaner hose during and after each cut. The filter bottle<br />

curved surface. The grooves in the file picked up a small was a plastic cylindrical bottle with a circular falter<br />

amount of surface material, which was transferred into paper covering a number of drilled holes in the bottom.<br />

a glass bottle by tapping the fde on the lip of the bottle. This technique collected most of the thinner samples<br />

In this wayy, samples were taken at the top, middle, and but only about half of the larger 245-mil samples. After<br />

bottom of the graphite stringer from the fucl-channel each sampling, the uncollected powder was carefully<br />

surface, from the surface in contact with graphite, and removed with the empty vacuum cleaner hose.<br />

from the curved surface adjacent to the control rod Before samples were cut from the narrow flats the<br />

thimble.<br />

corners of the stringer bars were milled off to a width<br />

Three capillaries were packed and mounted in holders and depth of 66 mils to avoid contamination from the<br />

which fitted into the x-ray camera.<br />

adjacent stringer surfaces. Then successive cuts 1, 2, 3.<br />

Samples from the fuel-channel surfaces yielded very 10, 20, and 30 mils deep were taken. Finally, a single<br />

dark fiims, which were difficult to read. Many weak cut 62 mils deep was taken on the opposite Eat<br />

lines were obsemed in the x-ray patterns. Since other fuel-channel surface. Only the latter cut was taken on<br />

analyses had shown Mo, Te, Ru, Tc, Ni, Fe, and Cr to the two stringer samples from positions halfway bebe<br />

present in significant concentrations on the graphite tween the bottom and middle and halfway between the<br />

surface, these elements and their carbides and tellurides middle and top of the stringer.<br />

were searched for by careful comparison with the 11.2.5 Ra$iocheanical and chemical analyses of<br />

observed patterns.<br />

In three of the graphite surface samples andyzed,<br />

MSRE graphite. The milled graphite samples were<br />

dissolved in a boiling mixture of concentrated H2So4<br />

most of the lines for MonC and ruthenium metal were and HN03 with provision for trapping any volatilized<br />

certainly present. For one sample, most of the lines for activities. The following analyses were run on the<br />

Cr,C3 were seen. (The expected chromium carbide in dissolved samples:<br />

equilibrium with excess graphite is Cr3 Cn , but nearly<br />

half the diffraction lines for this compound were<br />

missing, including the two strongest lines.) Five of the<br />

six strongest lines for NiT'ee, were observed. Molybdenum<br />

metal, telluriuni metal, technetium metal, chromium<br />

metal, CrTe, and MoTe2 were excluded by<br />

I. Gamma spectrometer scans for lQ6~u, 125~b,<br />

134Cs,'37Cs,1 "Ag, 144Ce,g55r,""b,and 6oCo.<br />

2. Separate radiochemical separations and analyses for<br />

"Sr, "Sr, lz7Te, and 'H. A few samples were<br />

andyzed for E.<br />

comparison of their known pattern with the observed<br />

spectrum. These observations (except for that of<br />

Cr&) are in accord with expected chemical behavior<br />

and are significant in that they represent the first<br />

experimental identification of the chemical. form of<br />

fission products known to be deposited on the graphite<br />

3. Uranium analyses by both the fluorometric and the<br />

delayed neutron counting methods.<br />

4. Spectrographic analyses for E, Be, Zr, Fe, Ni, Mo,<br />

and Cr. (Highyield fission products were also looked<br />

for but not found.)<br />

surface.<br />

Uranium and spectrographic mdyses. Table 11.3<br />

11.2.4 Milling ~f surface graphite samples. Surface gives the uranium andyses (cdculated as 33~) by both<br />

samples for chemical md radiochemical analyses were the fluorometric method mmd the delayed neutron<br />

nfled from the five 4-h-long segments from the topt counting method. The type of surfaces sampled, the<br />

middle, bottom, and two intermediate locations on the number of the cut, and the depth of the cut for each


Smpk<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

7<br />

11<br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

14<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

23<br />

26<br />

27<br />

28<br />

29<br />

31<br />

32<br />

33<br />

34<br />

35<br />

36<br />

39<br />

43<br />

44<br />

45<br />

48<br />

49<br />

50<br />

Cut and<br />

typeb<br />

Depth,<br />

mils<br />

Total U, ppm,<br />

fluorometric<br />

a33U, PPm<br />

delayed<br />

neutron<br />

Li, wm Be, P P ~ Zr, ppm<br />

Metal,C<br />

PPm<br />


... . .<br />

v;.;@<br />

values indicate that uranium penetration into modera-<br />

tor graphite should not be a serious problem in<br />

large-scale molten-salt reactors.<br />

The fact that fluorometric values for total uranium<br />

and the delayed neutron counting values for 2 4 3 ~<br />

agreed (with the 233U vdue usually larger than the<br />

total uranium value) indicates that little uranium<br />

remained in the graphite from the operation of the<br />

MSWE with U fuel. Apparently, the * U and U<br />

previously in the graphite underwent rather complete<br />

isotopic exchange with 233U after the fuel was<br />

changed. The finding of 150 to 2905 ppm nickel in a<br />

few of the surface samples is probably red, The main<br />

conclusions from the spectrographic analyses are that<br />

adherent or permeated fuel salt accounted for the<br />

uranium, lithium, and beryllium in half the sarnples and<br />

that a thin layer of nickel was probably deposited on<br />

some of the graphite surface.<br />

Radiochemicd analyses. Since the graphite stringer<br />

samples were taken more than a year after reactor<br />

shutdown, it was possible to analyze only for the<br />

reiatively long-lived fission products. However, the<br />

absence of interfering short-lived activities made the<br />

analyses fur long-lived nuclides more sensitive and<br />

precise. The radiochemkal analyses are gven in Table<br />

11.4, together with the type and location of surface<br />

sampled, the number of the milling cut, and the depth<br />

of the cut foe each sample.<br />

The species IZ5Sb, '"Ru, 1'oAg,"Nb,and"271e<br />

showed concentration profiles similar to those observed<br />

for noble-metal fission products (9 Mo, Te, ' Te,<br />

' Ru. ' Ru, and ' Nb) in previous graphite sui~ed-<br />

lance speciniens, that is, high surface concentrations<br />

fang rapidly several orders of magnitude to low<br />

interior concentrations. he profiles for ~r were of<br />

similar shape, but the interior concentrations were two<br />

or three orders of magnitude smaller than for its<br />

daughter ' ~ b IB . is thought that Zr is either injected<br />

into the graphite by a fission recoil rnech'anisaism or is<br />

carried with fuel salt into cracks in the graphite; the<br />

much larger concentrations of "h% (md the other<br />

noble metals) are thought to result from the deposition<br />

or plating of solid metallic or carbide particles on the<br />

graphite surface. The "Sr (33-sec "Kr precursor)<br />

profiles were much steeper than those previously<br />

observed in surveillance specimens for "~r (3.2-min<br />

88fi precursor), as expected. An attempt to analyze<br />

the stringer samples for Sr also was unsuccessful. It is<br />

difficult to malyze for one of these pure beta emitters<br />

in the presence of Barge activities of the other.<br />

Surprisingly high concentrations of tritium were<br />

found in the moderator gaphite samples (Table 11 -4)-<br />

123<br />

Re tritium concentration decreased rapidly from about<br />

10" dis niiii-' g-' at the surface to about IO9 dis<br />

miK' g-' at a depth ui 'jI6 in. and then decreased<br />

slowly to about half this value at the center of the<br />

stringer. If all the graphite in the MSRE contained this<br />

much tritium, then about 15% of the tritium produced<br />

during the entire power operation had been trapped in<br />

the graphite. About half the total trapped tritium was<br />

in the outer '/' 6-in. layer.<br />

Similarly high concentrations of tritium were found<br />

in specimens of Poco graphite (a graphte characterked<br />

by large uniform pores) exposed to fissioning salt in Bhe<br />

core during the find 1786 hr of operation. Surface<br />

concentrations as Iii& as 4.5 x IO" dis rnin-' g-'<br />

were found, but interior concentrations were below I O8<br />

clis min-' g-', much lower than for the moderator<br />

graphite. This suggests that the graphite surface is<br />

saturated relatively quickly but that diffusion to the<br />

interior is slow.<br />

If it is assumed that the surface area of the graphite<br />

(about 0.5 m2/g) is not changed by irradiation (there<br />

was no dependence of tritium sorption on flux), there<br />

was 1 tritium per 100 surface carbon atoms. Since the<br />

MSRE cover gas probably contained about 100 times as<br />

much hydrogen (from pump oil decomposition) as<br />

tritium, a remarkably complete coverage by chenaisorbed<br />

hydrogen is indicated.<br />

An overall assessment of tritium behavior in the<br />

MSWE3 and proposed MS14R's4 is presented elsewhere.<br />

The data on fission product deposition on and in the<br />

gtaphite, based on Table 1 E A, hdve been calculated as<br />

(observed activity per square centimeter) divided by<br />

(inventory activity/total area), as was done for surveillance<br />

specimens earlier. The resulting relative deposit<br />

intensities, shown in Table 1 B 5, can, of co~erse, then be<br />

compared with values reported fur other nuclides, other<br />

specimens, or other times. If dl graphite suxfaces were<br />

evenly covered at the indicated intensity, the fraction<br />

of total inventory in such deposits would be 74% of the<br />

relative deposit intensity shown. For top, middle, and<br />

bottom regions and for channel and edge (graphite-tographite)<br />

surfaces, values are ~hwn for surface and<br />

overall deep cuts.<br />

As in the case of surveillance specimens, intensities<br />

for salt-seeking nuclides are at levels appropriate for<br />

fission recoil (about 0.0511, the noble-gas daughters<br />

(I 7Cs and "Sr) are 18 to 20 times as high, and the<br />

noble metals notably higher, though, as we shall see,<br />

not as high on balance as on metals. Mere comparisons<br />

can be made, most of the deposit was indicated to be at<br />

the surface. Values for 9 5 are ~ far above 95~r,<br />

indicating that N~I was indeed deposited; the graphite


.._...-.-.<br />

Table B 1.4. Radiochemical analyses of graphite stringer samples<br />

Sample cut and Depth, - -_ Disintegrations per minu$ per gram of graphite on 12-12-69<br />

No. type’” mils ‘2SSb ro6RU “27Te 95iVb 1 lOAg 99gc 134cs 137cs 9% lf14Ce 95Zr IS2EU l S4EU 6OCO 3H<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

II<br />

12<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24<br />

26<br />

27<br />

28<br />

36<br />

31<br />

32<br />

33<br />

34<br />

35<br />

38<br />

40<br />

42<br />

43<br />

44<br />

49<br />

50<br />

51<br />

MD<br />

Thin blank 0 6


. . .,+, . . :. ..X.b . . . . .-..;<br />

kc.&/<br />

125<br />

Table 11.5. Fission pKdUCtS in MSRE graphite COR bar after removal in cumulative values of ratio to inventory<br />

--<br />

I____-_ ~<br />

Location Type Depth<br />

(mils)<br />

1 3 7 ~ ~ gos, 1 4 4 ~ ~ g5zZr 9sm I O 1~ 2 7 ~ ~ ~ ~<br />

TOP Channel 0-2 0.0008 0.007 0.0007 0.24a<br />

0-800 0.087 0.072 0.0032 0.0024 0.69<br />

Edge 0-2 0.0008 0.006 0.0005 0.0007 0.12<br />

Edge 0 62 0.0007 0.038 0.30<br />

Middle Channel 0-3 0.0029 0.030 0.002 0.31<br />

0-550 0.071 0.003<br />

Edge 0 3 0.013 0.014 0.0008 0.0008 0.15<br />

0-36 0.020 0.029 0.0011 0.0009 0.26<br />

Edge 0 62 0.030 0.075 0.0004 1 .oo<br />

Fdge 0-62 0.037 0.081 0.0021 0.0023 0.53<br />

Bottom Channel 0-3 O.OQ15 0.014 0.0012 0.0011 0.43<br />

0 800 0.069 0.017 0.0024 0.0011 0.58<br />

Edge 0-3 0.0017 0.006 0.0015 0.0015 0.45<br />

‘Includes signlficant Q values.<br />

values appear to be higher than those reported in the<br />

next section for metal surfaces, but the passage of a<br />

dozen half-lives between shutdown and determination<br />

may have reduced the precision of the data.<br />

11 .S Examination of Heat Exchangers and Control<br />

Rod mmMe surfaces<br />

Among the specimens of component surfaces excised<br />

from the MSRE were two segments of control rod<br />

thimble and one each of heat exchanger shell and<br />

tubing. In addition to the fission product data we<br />

report here. these specimens were of major interest<br />

because of grain-boundary cracking of surfaces contacting<br />

molten salt fuel, as discussed elsewhere.5<br />

Successive layers were removed electrochemically<br />

from the samples using methanol--l0% HCl as electrolyte.<br />

These solutions were examined both spectrographically<br />

and radiochemically. The sample depth was<br />

calculated from the amount of nickel and the specimen<br />

geometry, etc. Concentration profiles (relative to<br />

nickel) for the fuel side of the specimen of heat<br />

exchanger tube are shown in Fig. 11 -5 €or constituent<br />

elements. fission product tellurium, and various fission<br />

product nuclides. It is of interest to note that concentrations<br />

3 mils below the surface were 1 to 10% of<br />

those observed near the surface. Values this high could<br />

Inventory (di%/inm per gram of salt)<br />

6.2E9 6.169 5.9EIO 9.9E10 8.3E10<br />

0.11 0.024<br />

0.14 0.090<br />

0.037 0.036<br />

0.38 0.68<br />

0.05 0.10<br />

0.12<br />

0.021 0.015<br />

0.024 0.018<br />

1.16 0.94<br />

0.29 0.61)<br />

0.09 0.36<br />

0.14 0.43<br />

0.07 0.14<br />

3.3E9 2.OE9<br />

iasSb<br />

0.41<br />

0.50<br />

0.054<br />

0.79<br />

0.1 1<br />

0.24<br />

0.25<br />

2.14<br />

0.79<br />

0.68<br />

0.84<br />

0.27<br />

3.7E8<br />

be the result of a grain-boundary transport of the<br />

nuclides.<br />

For the various samples, deposit concentrations were<br />

obtained by summing the amounts determined in<br />

successive layers. These are shown, expressed as ratios<br />

to inventory concentration divided by total MSRE area<br />

(3.0 X IO6 cm2)>, in Table 11.6.<br />

As discussed for surveillance specimen and other<br />

deposit data, this ratio, the relative deposit intensity,<br />

permits direct comparison with deposits on other<br />

surfaces. for example, graphite. To calculate the fraction<br />

of inventory that deposits on a particular kind of<br />

surface, the relative deposit intensity should be multiplied<br />

by the fraction of MSRE surface represented by<br />

the deposit. The metal surface was 265% of the total<br />

MSRE surface.<br />

The most strongly deposited nuclides were Sb and<br />

27Te, with most values above I, indicative of a<br />

selective strong deposition. The variation in values from<br />

surface to surface suggests that generalizing any value to<br />

represent all metal surfaces will probably not be very<br />

accurate. Also. no values are available for certain large<br />

areas -- in particular, the reactor vessel surfaces. In spite<br />

of all these caveats, the data here for tellurium and<br />

antimony are consistent with similar data from the<br />

various surveillance specimens in indicating that these


elements are very strongly deposited on metal surfaces,<br />

as well as somewhat less strongly on graphite.<br />

It is sufficient here to note that less strong but<br />

appreciable deposition of ruthenium? technetium, and<br />

niobium was found.<br />

Fig. 11.5. Concentration profiles faom the fuel side of an<br />

MSRE heat exchanger tube measured about 1.5 years after<br />

reactor S~U~~QWII. (Arrows indicate Ievel was less than or equal<br />

to that given.)<br />

11.4 Metal Transfer in MSWE Salt Circuits<br />

Cobalt-60. is formed in Hastelloy N by neutron<br />

activation of ihe minor amount of Co (O.SS%> put in<br />

the alloy with nickel; the detection of 6oCo activity in<br />

bulk mepal serves as a measure of its irradiation history,<br />

and the detection of "Co activity on surfaces should<br />

serve as a measure of metal transport from irradiated<br />

regions. Cobalt-BO deposits were found on segments of<br />

coolant system radiator tube, on heat exchanger tubing,<br />

and on core graphite removed from the MSRE in<br />

January I97 1.<br />

The activity found on the radiator tubing (which<br />

received a completely negligible neutron dosage) was<br />

about 160 dis inin-' cm-'. This must have been<br />

transported by coolant salt flowing through heat<br />

exchanger tubing activated by delayed neutrons in the<br />

fuel salt. The heat exchanger tubing exhibited subsurface<br />

activity of about 3.7 X IO3 dishin per cubic<br />

centimeter of metal, corresponding to a delayed neutron<br />

flux in the heat exchanger of about I x 10' '. ~f<br />

metal were evenly removed from the heat exchanger<br />

and evenly deposited on the radiator tubing throughout<br />

the history of the MSRE, a metal transfer rate at fun<br />

puwei of about 0.0005 millyear is indicated.<br />

Cubalt-60 activity in excess of that induced in the<br />

heat exchanger tubing was found on the fuel side of the<br />

tubing (3.1 X 106 dis niiri-' cm-?-) and on the samples<br />

of core graphite taken from a fuel channel surface (5 X<br />

to 3.5 X<br />

dis min-' cmC). he higher values<br />

on the core graphite and their consistency wit11 iluence<br />

imply that additional activity was induced by core<br />

neutrons acting on "Co after deposition on the<br />

graphite.<br />

The reactor vessd (and annulus) walls are the major<br />

metal regions subject to substantial neutron flux. If<br />

these served as the major source of transported metal<br />

and if this metal deposited evenly on all surfaces, a<br />

metal loss rate at full power of about (4.3 xnilj'year is<br />

indicated. Because deposition occurred on both the<br />

hotter graphite and cooler heat exchanger surfaces.<br />

simple thermai transport is not indicated. Thermodynanzic<br />

arguments preclude oxidation by fuel.<br />

One mechanism for the indicated metal transport<br />

might have 10% of the 1.5 W/cm3 fission fragment<br />

en erg^ in the annular fuel within a 30-p range deposited<br />

in the metal and a small fraction of the metal sputtered<br />

into the fuel. About 0.4% of the fission fragment<br />

energy entering the metal resulting in such transfeet<br />

would correspond to the indicated reactor vessel loss<br />

rate of 0.3 miliyear. If this is the correct mechanism,<br />

reactors operating with higher fuel power densities


.=y<br />

adjacent to metal should exhibit proportionately higher<br />

loss rates.<br />

1 1.5 Cesin~n Isotope Migation in MSE Graphite<br />

Fission product concentration prof& were obtained<br />

on the graphite bar from the center of the MSRE core<br />

which was removed early in 1971. The bar had been in<br />

the core since the beginning of operation; it thus was<br />

possible to obtain profiles for 2.1-year ' 34Cs (a<br />

neutron capture product of the stable Cs daughter<br />

of 5.27-day 33~e) as well as the 3O-year ' 3 7 ~ s<br />

daughter of a.9-min 7Xe. These profies, extending<br />

to the center of the bar, are shown in Fig. 11.6.<br />

Graphite surveillance specimens exposed for shorter<br />

periods, and of thinner dimensions, have revealed<br />

similar profiles for CS.~ Some of these, along with<br />

profiles of other rare-gas daughters, were used in an<br />

analysis by Ked7 of the behavior of short-lived noble<br />

gases in graphite. Xenon diffusion and the possible<br />

formation of cesium carbide in molten-salt reactors<br />

have been considered by Baes and Evans.'<br />

An appreciable literature on the behavior of fission<br />

product cesium in nuclear graphite has been developed<br />

in studies for gas-cooled reactors by British kvestigators,<br />

the Dragon Project, Gulf General Atomic<br />

workers, and workers at <strong>ORNL</strong>.<br />

The profiles shown in Fig. 11.6 indicate significant<br />

diffusion of cesium atoms in the graphite after their<br />

formation. The 5.24-day half-life of 33Xe must have<br />

resulted in a fairly even concentration of this isotope<br />

125<br />

shows that this occurred. The ' Cs concentration that<br />

would accumulate in graphite if no diffusion occurred<br />

has been estimated from the power history of the<br />

MSRb to be about 2 X atoms per gram of<br />

graphite (higher if pump bowl xenon stripping is ._ -<br />

inefficient), assuming the local neutron flux was a<br />

minimum of four times the average core flux. The<br />

observed ' 34Gs concentration in the bar center, where<br />

diffusion effects would be least, was about 5 X 10l4<br />

atom of ' 3 4~s<br />

per gram of graphite. The agreement is<br />

not unreasonable.<br />

Data for N-year ' 7Cs are shown in Fig. I 1.6. c or<br />

comparison, the accumulated decay profile of the<br />

parent 3.9-miti 7Xe is shown as a dotted line in the<br />

(u to,7<br />

throughout the graphite and must have produced a flat 0 100 200 300 400 500 660 706 800<br />

deposition profile for 'Cs. This isotope and its DEPTH (mils)<br />

neutron product 34Cs could diffuse to the bar surface<br />

and could be traken up by the sdt. The CS profile<br />

to15<br />

11.6. concentPation of cesium isotopes in MSRE ore<br />

graphite at given distances from fuel c~mnei<br />

surface.<br />

Surface inventory !35m 99Tc 1WRU 1OSRu 127Te 12ssb<br />

- ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~<br />

Control rod thimble, bottom 0.14 1.2 1.5 0.5Q 1 .6§ 3.3<br />

Control rod thimble, middle 1.0 0.73 0.58 0.42 0.51 1.4<br />

Kist shield outside, liquid 0.26 0.73 0.27 0.38 0.89 2.8<br />

Heeat exchanger, shell 8.33 1 .0 0.10 0.1 9 1.4 2.6<br />

Heat exchanger. tube 0.27 1.2 0.1 I 0.54 2.6 4.3<br />

MSRE inventmy divk-kd by total MSRE surface area (dis min-' cm -')<br />

8.3E10 9E5 3.3EIO 3.3E9 2.OE9 3.7B8<br />

-


upper left of the figure. TBtis was estimated assuming<br />

that perfect stripping occurred in the pump bowl with a<br />

mass transfer coefficient from salt to central core<br />

graphite of 0.3 ftjhr' and a diffusion coefficient of<br />

xenon in graphite (10% porosity) of 'I X<br />

cm21sec.' '<br />

Near the surface the observed 13'Cs profile is lower<br />

than the estimated deposition profile ; toward the center<br />

the observed profile tapers downward but is about the<br />

es imated deposition profile. This pattern should develop<br />

if diffusion of cesium occurred. The central<br />

concentration is about one-third of that near the<br />

surface. Steady diffusion into a cylinder' from a<br />

constant surface source to yield a similar ratio requires<br />

fiat Dt/r2 be about 0.14. For a cylinder of 2 crn radius<br />

and a salt circulation time of 21,788 hr, a cesium<br />

diffusion coefficient of about 7 X IO-' cm2/sec is<br />

indicated.<br />

Data developed for cesium-in-graphite relationships in<br />

gas-cooled reactor systems' at temperatures of $00 to<br />

t100"C may be extrapolated to 650°C for comparison.<br />

The diffusion coefficient thereby obtained is slightly<br />

below IO-' '; the diffusion coefficient for a gas (xenon)<br />

is about 1 x cm2/sec. Some form of surface<br />

diffusion of cesium seems indicated. This is further<br />

substantiated by the sorption behavior reported by<br />

Milstead' for the cesium-nuclear-graphite system.<br />

In particular, Milstead has shown h t at temperatures<br />

of 880 to 1 100°C and concentrations of 0.04 to 1.6 mg<br />

of cesium per gram of graphite, cesium sorption on<br />

graphite follows a Freundlich isotherm (1.6 mg of<br />

cesiuni on 1 m2 of graphire surface corresponds to the<br />

saturation surface compound CsC8). Below this, a<br />

hngmuir isotherm is indicated. ]in the MSRE graphite<br />

under consideration the "Cs content was about 10'<br />

atoms per gram of graphite, and the 133 and 135<br />

chains would provide similar amounts, equivalent to a<br />

total content of 0.007 rng of cesium per gram of<br />

graphite. At 65O"C, in the absence of interference from<br />

other adsorbed species, Eangmuir adsorption to this<br />

concentration should occur at a cesium partial pressure<br />

of about 2 x IO-'* atm. At this pressure, cesium<br />

transport via the gas phase should be negfigible, and<br />

surface phenomena should control.<br />

To some extent, rubidium, strontium, and barium<br />

atoms also are indicated to be similarly adsorbed and<br />

likely to diffuse in graphite.<br />

It thus appears that for time periods of the order of a<br />

year or more the alkali and alkaline earth daughters of<br />

noble gases which get into the graphite can be expected<br />

to exhibit appreciable migration in the moderator<br />

graphite of molten-salt reactors.<br />

B 28<br />

11 -6 Noble-Metal Fission Transport Model<br />

It was noted elsewhere' that noble metals in MSIPE<br />

salt samples acted as if they were particulate con-<br />

stituents of a mobile "pool" of such substances held up<br />

in the system for a substmtial period and that evidence<br />

regarding this might be obtained from the activity ratio<br />

of pairs of isotopes.<br />

Pairs of the same element, thereby having the same<br />

chemical behavior (e.g., Ru and lo Ru), should be<br />

particularly effective. As produced, the activity ratio of<br />

such a pair is proportional to ratios of fission yields and<br />

decay constants. Accuinulatisn over the operating<br />

history yields the inventory ratio, ultimately propor-<br />

tional (at constant fission rate) only to the ratio of<br />

fission yields. If, however, there is an intermediate<br />

holdup and release before final deposition, the activity<br />

ratio of the retained material will depend on holdup<br />

time and will fall between production and inventory<br />

values. Furthermore, the material deposited after such a<br />

huldup will, as a result, have ratio values lower than<br />

inventory. (Values for the isotope of shorter half-life,<br />

here 03Ru, will be used in the numerator of the ratio<br />

throughout our discussion.) Consequently, comparison<br />

of an observed ratio of activities (in the same sampk)<br />

with associated production arid inventory ratios should<br />

provide an indication of the "accumulation history" of<br />

the region represented by the sample. Since both<br />

determinations are for isotopes of the same element in<br />

the same sample (consequently subjected to identical<br />

treatment), many sampling and handling errors cancel<br />

and do nut affect the ratio. Ratio values are thereby<br />

subject to less variation.<br />

We have used the ' ' Wu/' ' Ru activity ratio, among<br />

others, to examine samples of various kinds taken at<br />

various times in the MSRE operation. These include salt<br />

and gas samples from the pump bowl and other<br />

materials briefly exposed there at various times.<br />

Data are also available from the sets of surveillance<br />

specimens removed from runs 11, 14, 18, and 20.<br />

Materials removed from the off-gas line after runs 14<br />

and I8 offer useful data. Some information is avail-<br />

able' from the on-site gamma spectrometer surveys of<br />

the MSWE following runs 18 and 19, particularly with<br />

regard to the heat exchanger and off-gas line.<br />

11.6.1 Inventory and model. The data will be dis-<br />

cussed in terms of a "compartment" model, which will<br />

assign first-order transfer rates common for both<br />

isotopes between given regions and will assume thar this<br />

behavior was consistent throughout MSKE history.<br />

Because the half-lives of ' 03Ru and 06Ru are quite<br />

different, 39.6 and 367 days, respectively, appreciably<br />

~ . ~ .<br />

., . . . . . .<br />

. .. .. .


different isotope activity ratios are indicated for differ-<br />

ent conipartmcnts and tinies as simulated operation<br />

proceeds. A sketch of a useful scheme of compartments<br />

is shown in Fig. 1 1.9.<br />

We assume direct production of ’ ’ Ru and ’‘ Ru in<br />

tlie fuel salt in proportion to fission rate and fuel<br />

composition as determined by MSRE history. The<br />

material is fairly rapidly lost from salt either to<br />

“surfaces” or to a mobile “particulate pool” of agglom-<br />

erated material. The pool loses material to one or more<br />

final repositories, nominally “off-gas,” and also may<br />

deposit materid on the “surfaces.” Rates are such as to<br />

result in an appreciable holdup period of the order of<br />

50 to 100 days in the “particulate pool.” Decay, of<br />

course, occurs in all compartments.<br />

Material is also transferred to the “drain tank” as<br />

required by the history, and transport between com-<br />

partments ceases in the interval.<br />

From the atoms of each type at a given time in a<br />

given compartment, the activity ratio can be calculated,<br />

as well as an overall inventory ratio.<br />

We shall identify sarnples taken from different regions<br />

of the MSRE with the various compartments and thus<br />

obtain insight into the transport paths and lags leading<br />

to the sampled region. It should be noted that a<br />

compartment can involve more than one region or kind<br />

of sample. The additional information required to<br />

establish the amounts of material to be assigned to a<br />

given region, and thereby to produce a material balance,<br />

is not available.<br />

(AND HEEL)<br />

In comparison with the overall inventory value of<br />

’ Ru,” ’ Ru, we should expect “surface” values to<br />

equal it if the deposited rnaterial comes rapidly and<br />

only from “salt” and to be somewhat below it if, in<br />

addition. “‘particulate” is deposited. If there is no direct<br />

deposition from “salt” to “surface,” but only “particu-<br />

late,” then deposited material should approach “off-<br />

gas” compartment ratio.<br />

The “off-gas” compartment ratio should be below<br />

inventory. since it is assumed to be steadily deposited<br />

from the “particulate pool,” which is richer in the<br />

long-lived O6 Ru component than production, and<br />

inventory is the accumulation of production minus<br />

decay.<br />

The particulate pool will be above inventory if<br />

material is txansferred to it rapidly and lost from it at a<br />

significant rate. Slow loss rates correspond to long<br />

holdup periods, and ratio values tend toward inventory.<br />

Differential equations involving proposed transport,<br />

accumulation, and decay of Io3Ru and ‘06Wu atoms<br />

with respect to these compartments were incorporated<br />

into a fourth-order Runge-Kutta numerical integration<br />

scheme which was operated over the full M§RE power<br />

history.<br />

The rates used in one calculation referred to in the<br />

discussion below show rapid loss (less than one day)<br />

from salt to particulates and surface, with about 4%<br />

going directly to surface. Holdup in the particulate pool<br />

results in a daily transport of about 2% per day of the<br />

pool to “off-gas,” for an effective average holdup<br />

(ALL TRANSPORT CEASES DURING<br />

PERIOR THAT SALT IS DRAINED<br />

FROM SYSTEM)<br />

Fig. 11.9. Compartment model for noblemetal fission transport in MSRE.


period of about 45 days. All transport proccsses are<br />

assumed irreversible in this scheme.<br />

11.6.2 Off-gas line deposits. Data were reported in<br />

Sect. 10 on tlie examination dfter run 14 (March 1968)<br />

of the jumper line installed after run 9 (December<br />

19661, on the examination after run 18 (June 1969) of<br />

parts of a specimen holdei assembly from the main<br />

off-gas line installed after run 14, and on the exantination<br />

of parts of line 523, the fuel pump overflow<br />

tank purge gas outIet to the main off-gas line, which<br />

was installed during original fabrication of MSRL<br />

These data are shown in Table I H .7.<br />

For the jumper line removed after run 14, observed<br />

ratios range from 2.4 to 7.3. By comparison the<br />

inventory ratio for the net exposure interval was 12.2.<br />

If a holdup period of about 45 days prior to deposition<br />

in the off-gas line is assumed, we calculate a lower ratio<br />

for the compartment of 7.0. It scems indicated that a<br />

holdup of ruthenium of 45 days or more is required.<br />

Ratio values from the specimen holder removed from<br />

the 52% line after run 18 ranged between 9.7 and 5.0.<br />

Net inventory iatio for the period was 13.7. and for<br />

material deposited after a 45-day holdup, we estimated<br />

a ratio of 12.3. A longer holdup would reduce this<br />

estimate. However, we recall that gas flow th~oqgh this<br />

line was appreciably diminished during the final month<br />

of run 18. This would cause the observed ratio values to<br />

be lower by an appreciable factor than would ensue<br />

from steady gas flow all the time. A holdup period of<br />

something over 45 days still appears indicated.<br />

Flow of off-gas through line 523 was less well known.<br />

In addition to bubbler pas to measure salt depth in the<br />

overflow tank, part of the main off-gas flow from the<br />

pump bowl went through the overff ow tank when flow<br />

through line 522 was hindered by deposits. The<br />

observed ratio after run 18 was 8 to 13.7, inventory was<br />

9.6, and fur material deposited after 45 days holdup the<br />

ratio is calculated to be 5.8. However. the unusually<br />

great flow during the final month of run 18 (until<br />

blockage of line 523 on May 25) would increase the<br />

observed ratio considerably. This response is consistent<br />

with thc low value for material from line 522 cited<br />

above. So we believe the assumption of an appreciable<br />

holdup period prior to deposition in off-gas regions<br />

remains valid.<br />

H 1 A.3 Surveillance specimens. Surveillance specimens<br />

of graphite and also selected segments of metal<br />

were removed from the core surveillance assembly after<br />

exposure throughout several runs. Table 11.8 shows<br />

values of the activity ratios for 103Ru/'06Ru for a<br />

number of graphite and metal specimens removed on<br />

different occasions in 1967, 1968, and 1969. Insofar as<br />

deposition of these isotopes occurred irreversibly md<br />

with reasonable directness soon after fission, the ratio<br />

values should agree with the net inventory for the<br />

period of exposure, and the samples that had been<br />

exposed longest at a given removal time should have<br />

appropriately lower values for the ' RU/' au activ-<br />

ity ratio.<br />

Examination of Table 1 I .8 shows that this latter view<br />

is confirmed - the older samples do have values that are<br />

lower, to about the right extent. However, we also note<br />

that most observed ratio values fall somewhat below the<br />

net inventory values. This could come about if, in<br />

addition to direct deposition from salt onto surfaces,<br />

deposition also occurred from the Iioldup "pool,"<br />

presumed colloidal or particulate, which was mentioned<br />

in the discussion of the off-gas deposits. Few of the<br />

observed values fall below the parenthesized off-gas<br />

values. This value was calculated to result if all the<br />

deposited material had come from the holdup pool.<br />

Table 18.4. Ruthenium isotope activity ratios<br />

of off-gas time deposits<br />

Observed vs calculated<br />

1 disimin Io3Ru<br />

-. , ,<br />

dis:min lob~u<br />

Sample Observed Calculated<br />

1. Jumper Sestion of Line 522, Exposed December 1966<br />

to<br />

7 r<br />

March 25, 1968<br />

Flextool<br />

Productionb 58<br />

Upstream hose<br />

Net inventory 12.1<br />

Downstream hose 4.1<br />

Inlet dust i .3<br />

Net deposi t if:<br />

Ourlet dust<br />

4.4 45-day holdup 7.0<br />

90-day holdup 5.5<br />

88. Specimen Bolder, Line 522, Exposed August 8968<br />

I<br />

eo June 1969<br />

Rail end<br />

Production' 43<br />

Flake<br />

Net inventory 19.7<br />

Tube sections 5.4,s.g<br />

Recount 7/70, corr 6,<br />

z<br />

2 Net deposit if 45-day holdup 12.3<br />

90-day holdup 9.3<br />

111. Overflow Tank Off-Gas Line (529, Exposed 1965<br />

to June 1969<br />

Valve V513<br />

Line 523<br />

Valve HCV 523<br />

9.6<br />

45-day holdup 5.8<br />

90-day holdup 4.3<br />

aCorrected to time of shutdown.<br />

b435LJ-2381. fuel, with inbred 239Pu.<br />

c2 LJ fuel, including 2.1 '%; of fissions from contained ' hi<br />

and 4.3% from 239Pu. LA<br />

L.&4


(9'6) P'E I L'IZ


____<br />

I<br />

._ e-<br />

4<br />

\<br />

i<br />

k<br />

1<br />

I<br />

---<br />

e<br />

~<br />

I<br />

i s<br />

-i B<br />

.<br />

K..ir>:.-.-<br />

...<br />

.,.


. *.- . . . . . . . :,.<br />

. w.- Y<br />

regions resulting in a limited retention rather than the<br />

unlimited retention implied by an inventory value.<br />

Although meaningful differences doubtless exist between<br />

different kiilds of samples taken from the pump<br />

bowl, their similarity clearly indicates that all are taken<br />

from the same mobile pool, which loses material? but<br />

slowly enough to have an average retention period of<br />

several months.<br />

Discussion. The data presented above repre3ent<br />

practically ai1 the ratio data available for hfSRE<br />

samples. The data based on gamma spectrometer<br />

surveys of V ~ ~ ~ Qreactor U S regions, particularly after<br />

runs 18 and 19. have not been examined in detail bait in<br />

cursory views appear not too inconsistent with values<br />

given here.<br />

It appears possible to summarize our findings about<br />

fission product suthenium in this way:<br />

The off-gas deposits appear to have resulted from the<br />

fairly steady accuniuiation of material which had been<br />

retained elsewhere for periods of the order of several<br />

months prior to deposition.<br />

The deposits on surfaces also appear to have con-<br />

tained material retained elsewhere prior to deposition,<br />

though not tu quite the same extent, so that an<br />

appreciable part could have been deposited soon after<br />

fission.<br />

All materials taken from the pump howl contain<br />

ruthenium sot opes with a coinrnon attribute: they are<br />

representative of an accumulation of several months.<br />

Thus ali samples from the pump bowl presumably get<br />

their ruthenium from a common source.<br />

Since it is reasonable to expect fission products to<br />

enter salt first as ions or atoms, presumably these<br />

rapidly deposit on surfaces or are agglomerated. The<br />

agglomerated material is not dissolved in salt but is<br />

fairly well dispersed and may deposit on surfaces to<br />

some extent. It is believed that regions associated with<br />

the pump bowl -- the liquid surface, including bubbles,<br />

the shed roof, mist shield, and overflow tank - are<br />

effective in accumulating this agglomerated material.<br />

Regions with highest ratio of salt surface to salt mass<br />

(gas samples containing mist and surfaces exposed to<br />

the gas-liquid interface) have been found to have the<br />

highest quantities of these isotopes relative to the<br />

amount of salt in the sample. So the agglomerate seeks<br />

the surfaces. Since the subsurfrrce salt samples, however,<br />

never show amounts of ruthenium in excess of in-<br />

ventory, it would appear that material entrained,<br />

possibly with bubbles. is fairly well dispersed when in<br />

salt.<br />

LOSS of the agglomerated material to one or more<br />

permanent sinks at a rate of 1 or 2% per day is<br />

indicated. In addition to the off-gas system and to some<br />

133<br />

extent the reactor surfaces, these sinks could include<br />

the overflow tank and various nooks, crannies, and<br />

crevices if they provided for a reasonably steady<br />

irreversible loss.<br />

Without additionai information the ratio method<br />

cannot indicate how much material follows a particular<br />

path to a particular sink. but it does serve to indicate<br />

the paths and the transport lags dong them for the<br />

isotopes under consideration.<br />

References<br />

I. E. L. Compere and E. G. Bohlmann. “Examination<br />

of Deposits from the Mist Shieid in the MSRE Fuel<br />

Pump Bowl,” MSR Program Semiannu. Prog. Rep. Feb.<br />

28, 1971, pp. 76- 85.<br />

2. A. Houtzeel, private communication.<br />

3. P. N. Haubenreich, A Review of Production arid<br />

Observed Distribution of Trifium in the MSRE in the<br />

Light ojRecenF Findings, 8WNL-GI;-71-8-34 (Aug. 23,<br />

1971). (Internal document - No further dissemination<br />

authorized.)<br />

4. W. B. Briggs, “Tritium in Molten Salt Reactors.”<br />

Reactor Technol. 14,335 42 (Winter 1971-1972).<br />

5. H. E. McCoy and B. hlcSabb, Intergranular Cpac k-<br />

ing of IiVOR-8 iti the MSRE, QRNL-4829 (November<br />

1972).<br />

6. S. S. Kirslis et al., “Concentration Profiies of<br />

Fission Products in Graphite,” MSR Prcgram SPmiannu.<br />

Prop. Rep. Aug. 31, 1970, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4622, pp. 69 40;<br />

Feb. 28, 1970, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4548, pp. 104 5;Fe’t.b. 28, 1967,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4119, pp. 125-28;A~g. 31, 1966, OWSL-4037,<br />

pp. 180 84 D. R. Cuneo et al., ‘“Fission Product<br />

Profiles in Three MSRE Graphite Surveillance Speci-<br />

mens,” MSR Program Swiiaanrzu. Progr. Rep. Azg. 31,<br />

1968, 0RNL-4344, pp. 142, 144-47; Feh. 29, 2968,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-4254. pp. 116, 118- 22.<br />

4 R. J. Kedl, A Model for Computing the kfigraFion<br />

of Very Short Lived Noble Gases into MSKE Graphite,<br />

<strong>ORNL</strong>-TM- 1 81 0 (July 1967).<br />

8. C. E. Baes, Jr., and W. B. Evans III.MSR Program<br />

Semiannu. Prop. Rep.p. AUK. 31, 1966, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4037, pp.<br />

158-65.<br />

9. R. Bo Briggs, “Estimate of the Afterheat by Decay<br />

of Noble Metals in MSBR and Comparison with Data<br />

Cram the MSRE.” MSR-68-138 (Nov. 4, 1968). (Inter-<br />

nal document - No further dissemination authorized.)<br />

10. R. B. Evans III, J. L. Rutherford, and A. P.<br />

Malinauskas, Gas Transport in MSRE Moderator Graph-<br />

ite> 11. Effects of Inipregiation, UI. Variation oj Fiow<br />

Properties, ORSL-4389 (May 1969).<br />

11. 3 Crank, p. 6’7 in TlzeMathematics of Dijjfiision,<br />

Oxford Universitv Press. London. 1956.


P 34<br />

12. H. J. de Nordwall, private communication. 4548, pp. 111 -18; see also Sect. 6, this report, %<br />

13. C. E. Milstead, “Sorption Characteristics of the<br />

Cesium-Graphite System at EIevatcd Temperatures and<br />

Low Cesium Pressure,” Cnrhon (Oxford) 7, 199- 200<br />

41969).<br />

14. E. E. Compere and E. 6. Bohlmann, MSR<br />

Program Serniamu. Progr. Rep. Feh. 28, 1990, <strong>ORNL</strong>-<br />

especially Fig. 65.<br />

15. A. Houtzeel and F. F. Dyer. R Study of Fissioiz<br />

Products in the Molten Salt Reactor Expetfinent bey<br />

Gamma Spectrometry. OKNGTM-3 15 1 (August 1972).


. . . . . . . . .<br />

... . . . . . . :..*<br />

.X$y//<br />

.............<br />

.. ... .<br />

-&!.!,v<br />

A detaiied synthesis of all the factors known to affect<br />

fission product behavior in this reactor is not possible<br />

within the available space. Many of the comments<br />

which follow are based on a recent summary report.'<br />

Operation of the MSRE provided an opportunity €or<br />

studying the behavior of fission products in an<br />

operating molten-salt reactor, and every effort was<br />

made to maximize utilization of the facilities provided,<br />

even though they were not originally designed for some<br />

of the investigations which became of interest. Sig-<br />

nificant difficulties stemmed f~om:<br />

I.<br />

2.<br />

3.<br />

4.<br />

5.<br />

The salt spray system in the pump bowl could not<br />

be turned off. TIius the generation of bubbles and<br />

salt mist was ever present; moreover, the effects<br />

were not constant, since they were affected by salt<br />

level, which varied continuously.<br />

The design of the sampler system severely limited<br />

the geometry of the sampling devices.<br />

A mist shield enclosing the sampling point provided<br />

a special environment.<br />

Lubricating oil from the pump bearings entered the<br />

pump bowl at a rate of I to 3 cm3/day.<br />

There was continuously varying flow and blowback<br />

of fuel salt between the pump bowl and an over-<br />

flow tank.<br />

In spite of these problems, useful information con-<br />

cerning fission product fates in the MSRE was gAined.<br />

135<br />

12. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW<br />

12.1.1 Salt samples. The fission products Rb, Cs,<br />

Sr, Ba, the lanthanides and Y, and Zr all form<br />

stable fluorides which are soluble in fuel salt. These<br />

fluorides would thereby be expected to be<br />

found completely in the fuel salt except in those cases<br />

where there is a noble-gas precursor of sufficiently long<br />

half-life to be appreciabiy stripped to off-gas. Table<br />

12.1 summarizes data from salt samples obtained during<br />

the a u operation of the MSKE for fission products<br />

with and without significant noble-gas precursors. As<br />

expected, the isotopes with significant noble-gas pre-<br />

cursors (89Sr and 13'Cs) show ratios to calculated<br />

inventory appreciably lower than those without, which<br />

generally scatter around or somewhat above 1 .O.<br />

12.1.2 Ibeg~~ition. Stable fluorides showed little<br />

tendancy to deposit on IIastelloy S or graphite.<br />

Examinations of surveillance specimens exposed in the<br />

core of the MSRE showed only 0.1 to 0.2% of the<br />

isotopes without noble-gas precursors on graphite and<br />

Hatselloy W. The bulk of the amount present stemmed<br />

from fission recoils and was generally consistent with<br />

the flus pattern.<br />

However. the examination of profiles and deposit<br />

intensities indicated that nuclides with noble-gas pre-<br />

cursors were deposited within the graphite by the decay<br />

of the noble gas that had diffused into the relatively<br />

porous graphite. Clear indication was noted of a further<br />

Table 12.1. Stable fluoride fission product activity as B fraction of cd~~lated<br />

inventory in salt samples from 2 3 3 ~<br />

operation<br />

Without significant noble-gas precursor With noblegas precursor<br />

Nuclide " ~ r 14'ce 144 Ce 14'Nd 89sP 137cs 91Y 1 4 0 ~ ~<br />

Weighted yield, 70' 6.01 6.43 4.60 1.99 5.65 6.57 5.43 5.43<br />

Half-life, days 65 33 284 11.1 52 30 yr. 58.8 12.8<br />

Noble-gas precursor 89Kr ""9e 91Kr I4'xe<br />

becursor half-life 3.2 rnin 3.9 rnin 9.8 sec 16 see<br />

Activity in saltb<br />

Runs 15-17 0.88-1.09 0.87-1.04 1.14-1.25 0.99-1.23 0.67-0.97 0.82-0.93 0.83-1.46 0.82-1.23<br />

R M 1% ~<br />

1 .05-1.09 0.95-0.99 1.16-1.36 0.82-1.30 0.84-0.89 0.86-0.99 1 .l6-1.55 1.10--1.20<br />

Runs 19-20 0.95-1.02 0.89-1.04 1.17-1.28 1.10-1.34 0.70-0.95 0.81-0.98 1.13-1.42 1.02-1.20<br />

aAIIocated fission yields: 93.2% 233U, 2.3% 235U, 4.5% 239Pu.<br />

bAs fraction of calculated inventory. Range shown is 25-45 percentile of sample; thus half the sample values fall within this<br />

range.


diffusion of the relatively volatile cesium isotopes, and<br />

possibly also of Rb, Sr, and Ba; after production within<br />

graphite.<br />

12.1.3 Gas samples. Gas samples obtained from the<br />

gas space in the pump bowl mist shield were consistent<br />

with the above results for the salt-seeking isotopes with<br />

and without noble-gas precursors. Table 12.1 shows the<br />

percentages of these isotopes which were estimated to<br />

be in the pump bowl stripping gas, based on the<br />

amounts found in gas samples. Agreenient with ex-<br />

pected amounts where there were strippable noble-gas<br />

precursors is satisfactory considering the mist shieid,<br />

contamination problems, and other experimental dif-<br />

ficulties. Gamma spectrometer examination of the<br />

off-gas line showed little activity due to salt-seeking<br />

isotopes without noble-gas precursors. Examinations of<br />

sections of the off-gas line also showed only small<br />

amounts of these isotopes present.<br />

12.2 Noble Metals<br />

The so-called noble metals showed a tantalizingly<br />

ubiquitous behavior in the MSRE, appearing as salt-<br />

borne, gas-borne, and metal- arid graphite-penetrating<br />

species. Studies of these species included isotopes of<br />

Nb, hlo, Tc, Ru, Ag, Sb, and Te.<br />

12.2.11 Salt-borne. The concentrations of five of the<br />

noble-metal nuclides found in salt samples ranged from<br />

fractions to tens of percent of inventory from sample to<br />

sample. Also. the proportionate composition of these<br />

isotopes remained relatively constant from sample to<br />

sample in spite of the widely varying amounts found.<br />

Silver-111 ~ which clearly wuuld be a metal in the MSRE<br />

salt and has no volatile fluorides, followed the pattern<br />

quite well and also was consistent in the gas samples.<br />

This strongly supports the contention that we were<br />

dealing with metal species.<br />

These results suggest the following about the noble<br />

metals in the MSRE.<br />

The bulk of the noble metals remain accessible in<br />

the circulating loop but with widely varying<br />

amounts in circulation at any particular time.<br />

In spite of this wide variation in the total amount<br />

found in a particular sample, the proportional<br />

composition is relatively constant, indicating that<br />

the entire inventory is in substantial equilibrium<br />

with the new material being produced.<br />

The mobility of the pool of noble-metal material<br />

suggests that deposits occur as an accumulation of<br />

finely divided, well-mixed material rather than as a<br />

“plate.”<br />

No satisfactory correlation of noble-metal concentration<br />

in the salt samples arid any operating parameter<br />

could be found.<br />

In order to obtain further understanding of this<br />

particulate pool, the transport paths and lags of<br />

noble-metal fission products in the hllSRE were examined<br />

using all available data on the activity ratio of two<br />

isotopes of the same element, 39.6-day ‘03Wu and<br />

364-day “Ru. Data from graphite and metal surveillance<br />

specimens exposed for various periods and<br />

removed at various times, for niateriai taken from the<br />

off-gas system, and for salt and gas samples arid other<br />

materials exposed to pump bowl salt were compared<br />

with appropriate inventory ratios and with values<br />

calculated for indicated lags in a simple compartment<br />

model. This model assumed that salt rapidly lust<br />

ruthenium fission product formed in it, soale to<br />

surfaces and most to a separate mobile “pool” of<br />

noble-metal fission productt, presumably particulate or<br />

colloidal and located to an appreciable extent in pump<br />

bowl regions. Some of this “pool’9 material deposited<br />

on surfi~ces and also appears to be the source of the<br />

off-gas deposits. All materials sampled from or exposed<br />

in the pump bowl appear to receive their ruthenium<br />

activity jointly from the pool of retained material and<br />

from more direct deposition as produced. Adequate<br />

agreement of observed data with indications of the<br />

model resulted when holdup periods of 45 to 90 days<br />

were assumed.<br />

12.22 Niobium. Niobium is the most susceptible of<br />

the noble metals to oxidation should the U4’/U3+ ratio<br />

be allowed to get too high. Apparently this happened at<br />

the start of the U operation, as was indicated by a<br />

relatively sharp rise in Cr2+ concentration; it was also<br />

noted that 60 to about 100% of the calculated ”Nb<br />

inventory was present in the salt samples. Additions of<br />

a reducing agent (beryllium metal): which inhibited the<br />

Cr2+ buildup, also resulted in the disappearance of the<br />

‘ Xb from the salt. Subsequently the<br />

Nb reappeared<br />

in the salt several times for not always ascertainable<br />

reasons and was caused to leave the salt by further<br />

reducing additions. As the 23 I.J operations continued,<br />

the percentage of ” Kb which reappeared decreased,<br />

suggesting both reversible and irreversible sinks. The<br />

”Nb data did not correlate ciosely with the Mo-Ru-Te<br />

data discussed, nor was there any observable correlation<br />

of its behavior with amounts found in gas sampless.<br />

12-23 Gas-borne. Gas samples taken from the pump<br />

bowl during the 235U operation indicated con-<br />

centrations of noble metals that implied that substantial<br />

percentages (30 to 100) of the noble metals being


..... ,:.;..~. -,.,<br />

,. . . . . .<br />

. ... ...... .<br />

.i<br />

W . d<br />

produced in the MSRE fuel system were being carried<br />

out in the 4 liters (STP)/niin helium purge gas. The data<br />

obtained in the 23 3U operation with substantially<br />

improved sanipling techniques indicated much lower<br />

transfers to off-gas. In both cases it is assumed that the<br />

noble-metal concentration in a gas sample obtained<br />

inside the mist shield was the same as that in the gas<br />

leaving the pump bowl proper. (The pump bowl was<br />

designed to niinimize the, amount of mist in the<br />

sampling area and also at the gas exit port.) It is our<br />

belief that the * U period data are representative and<br />

that the concentrations indicated by the gas samples<br />

taken during U operation are anomalously high<br />

because of contamination. This is supported by direct<br />

examination of a section of the off-gas system after<br />

completion of the 23 'U operation. The iarge amounts<br />

of noble rnetais that would be expected on the basis of<br />

the gas sample indications were not present. Appre-<br />

ciable (1 0 to 1'7%) amorphous carbon was found in dust<br />

samples recovered from the line, arid the amounts of<br />

noble metals roughly correlated with the amounts of<br />

carbon. This suggests the possibility of noble-metal<br />

absorption during cracking of the oil.<br />

In any event the gas transport of noble metals appears<br />

to have been as constituents of particulates. Analysis of<br />

Graphite<br />

Metal<br />

Surface<br />

Fiow regime<br />

Table 12.2. Relative deposition intensities fox rnobie metals<br />

the deposition of flowing aerosols in conduits de-<br />

veloped relationships between observable deposits and<br />

flowing concentrations or fractions of production to<br />

off-gas for diffusion and thermophoresis mechanisms.<br />

The thermophoretic mechanism was indicated to be<br />

dominant; the fraction of noble-metal production car-<br />

ried into off-gas, based on this mechanism, was slight<br />

(much below 1%).<br />

12.3 Deposition in Graphite and Bastellsy N<br />

The results from core suiveillance specimens and from<br />

postoperation examination of components revealed<br />

that differences in deposit intensity for noble metals<br />

occurred as a result of flow conditions and that deposits<br />

on metal were appreciably heavier than OK graphite,<br />

paiticularly foi tellurium and its precursor antimony.<br />

The find surveillance specimen array. exposed for the<br />

last four months of MSRE operations, had graphite and<br />

metal specimens matched as to configuration in varied<br />

Row conditions. The relative deposition intensities (1 .O<br />

if the entire inventory was spread evenly over all<br />

surfaces) were as shown in Table 12.2.<br />

The examination of some segments excised from<br />

particular reactor components, including core metal and<br />

graphite, pump bowl, and heat exchanger surfaces. one<br />

Deposition intensity<br />

9SNb 9gMo YPTc I03wu 106wLl 12sSb 129mTe L3ZTe<br />

Surveillance specimens<br />

Laminar 0.2 0.2 0.06 0.16<br />

Turbulent 0.2 0.04 0.10<br />

Laminar 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3<br />

Turbulent 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.3<br />

Reactor components<br />

Graphite<br />

Core bar channel Turbulent<br />

Bottom 0.54 0.07<br />

Middle 1.09<br />

Top 0.23<br />

0.15<br />

0.07<br />

0.25 6.65 0.46'<br />

1.06 1.90 0.9P<br />

0.28 0.78 0.62'<br />

Metal<br />

Pump bowl Turbulent 0.26 0.73 0.27 0.38 2.85 0.89<br />

Heat exchanger shell Turbulent 0.33 1.0 0.10 0.19 2.62 1.35'<br />

Heat exchanger tube Turbulent 0.27 1.2 0.11 0.54 4.35 2.57'<br />

Core<br />

Rod thimble<br />

Bottom<br />

Middle<br />

Turbulen t<br />

Turbulent<br />

1.42<br />

1 .oo<br />

1.23<br />

0.73<br />

1.54<br />

0.58<br />

0.50<br />

0.42<br />

3.27<br />

1.35<br />

1.65a<br />

0.54'<br />

~2127..<br />

I e.<br />

0.9<br />

2.0


year after shutdown also revelaled appreciable accumu-<br />

lation of these substances. The relative deposition<br />

intensities at these locations are also shown in Table<br />

12.2.<br />

It is evident that net deposition generally was more<br />

intense on metal than on graphite, and for metal was<br />

more intense under more turbulent flow. Surface<br />

roughmess had no apparent effect.<br />

Extension to all the metal and graphite areas of the<br />

system wauld require knowledge of the effects of flow<br />

conditions in each region and the fraction of total area<br />

represented by the region. (Overall, metal area was 26%<br />

of the total and graphite 74%)<br />

Flow effects have not been studied experimentally:<br />

theoretical approaches based on atom mass transfer<br />

through salt boundary layers, though a useful frame of<br />

reference, do not in their usual form take into account<br />

the formation, deposition, and release of fine particu-<br />

late material such as that indicated to have been present<br />

in the fuel system. Thus, much more must be learned<br />

about the fates of noble metals in molten-salt reactors<br />

before their effects on various operations can be<br />

estimated reliably.<br />

Although the noble metals are appreciably deposited<br />

on graphite, they do not penetrate any more than the<br />

salt-seeking fluorides without noble-gas precursors.<br />

The more vigorous deposition of noble-metal nuclides<br />

on Hastelloy N was indicated by postoperation<br />

examination to include penetration into the metal to a<br />

slight extent. Presumably this occurred along grain-<br />

boundary cracks, a few mils deep, whch had developed<br />

during extended operation, possibly because of the<br />

deposited fission product tellurium.<br />

12.4 Iodine<br />

The salt samples indicated considerable I was not<br />

present in the fuel, the middle quartiles of results<br />

ranging from 45 to 71% of inventory with a median of<br />

62%. The surveillance specimens and gas samples<br />

accounted for less than 1% of the rest. The low<br />

tellurium material balances suggest the remaining ’ I<br />

was permanently removed from the fuel as I3’~e<br />

(half-life, 25 min). Gamma spectrometer studies indicated<br />

the *’ I formed in contact with the fuel returned<br />

to it; thus the losses must have been to a region or<br />

regions not in contact with fuel. This strongly suggests<br />

off-gas, but the iodine and tellurium data from gas<br />

samples and examinations of off-gas components do not<br />

support such a loss path. Thus, of the order of<br />

one-fourth to one-third of the iodine has not been<br />

adequately accounted for.<br />

It is recogniLed that, as shown in gas-coaled reactor<br />

studies:-’ fission product iodine may be at paitial<br />

pressures in off-gas helium that are too low for iodine<br />

to be fmed by steel surfaces at temperatures above<br />

about 400°C. However, various off-gas surfaces at or<br />

downstream from the jumper line outlet were below<br />

such temperatures and did not indicate appreciable<br />

iodine deposition. Combined with low values in gas<br />

samples, this indicates little iodine transport to off-gas.<br />

12.5 Evaluation<br />

The experience with the MSE showed that the noble<br />

gases and stable fluorides behaved as expected based on<br />

their chemistry . The noblemetal behavior and fates,<br />

however, are still in part a matter of conjecture. Except<br />

for niobium under unusually oxidizing conditions, it<br />

seem clear that these elenients are present as metals<br />

and that their ubiquitous properties stem from that fact<br />

since metals are not wetted by, and have extremely low<br />

solubilities in, molten-salt reactor fuels. Unfortunately<br />

the MSRE observations probably were substantially<br />

affected by the spray system, oil cracking products, and<br />

flow to and from the overflow, a11 of which were<br />

continuously changing, uncontrolled variables. The low<br />

material balance on ’ ‘1 indicates appreciable undetermined<br />

loss from the MSRE, probably as a noblenietal<br />

precursor (Te, Sb).<br />

Table 12.3 shows the estimated distribution of the<br />

various fission products in a molten-salt reactor, based<br />

on the MSRE studies. Unfortunately the wide variance<br />

and poor materid balances for the data on noble metals<br />

make it unrealistic to specify their fates more than<br />

cpditati~ely . As a consequence, future reactor designs<br />

must allow for encountering appreciable fractions of<br />

the noble metals in all regions contacted by circulating<br />

fuel. As indicated in the table, continuous chemical<br />

processing and the processes finally chosen will substantially<br />

affect the fates of many of the fission<br />

products.<br />

References<br />

1. M. W. Rosenthal, P. K. Haubenreich, and R. B.<br />

Briggs, The Developnzeizt Status of Molten Salt Breeder<br />

Reactors, <strong>ORNL</strong>-4812 (August 15)72), especially chap.<br />

5. “Fuel and Coolant Chemistry,” by W. R. Grimes, E.<br />

6. Bohlmann, et al., pp. 95- 173.<br />

2. E. Hoinkis. A Review of’ the Adsorption of Iodine<br />

on Metal and Its Behavior in Loops, QRNL-IFM-2916<br />

(May 1970).<br />

3. C. E. Milstead, W. E. Bell, and J. H. Norman,<br />

“Deposition of Iodine on Low Chromium-Alloy<br />

Steels”, NucL Apple Techno!. 7, 361-66 (1969). .. ...<br />

L


Table B2.3. Indicated distributiion of fission products in molten-salt reactors<br />

- --- -..- ---<br />

Fission product gmup Example isotopes<br />

Distribution (%)<br />

Hn salt To metal To graphite To off-gas Other<br />

___-- -.<br />

Stable salt seekers Zr-9.5, Ce-144, Nd-141 VB Negligible < 1 (fission recoils) Negligible RocessingQ<br />

Stable salt seekers (noble gas precursors) Sr-89, Cs-I 37, Ba-140, Y-91 VariaI~le/T~~~ of gas Negligible Low Variable/T 1 ,2 of gas<br />

Noble gases MI-89, Kr-91, Xe-135, Xe-137 Low/T1,2 Qf gas Negligible Low High/T,,, of gas<br />

Noble metals Nb-9.5, MO-99, Ru-106, &-ill l-20 5-30 5-30 Negligible Processingh<br />

Tellurium, antimony l-e-129, Te-121, Sb-125 l-20 20-90 5-30 Negligible Processingb<br />

Iodine I-l 31, I-l 35 SO-IS


4. P. R. Rowland, W. E. Browning, and MI. Carlyle, 5. E. k. Conzpere, M. F. BS~UK~C, and H. J. deNord-<br />

Behavior of Iodine Isotopes in a High Temperature Gas wall, Iodine Behavior in an HER, ORSL-TM-4744<br />

Reactor Coolant Circuit, I). P. Report 736 (November<br />

E 970).<br />

(February 1975).<br />

L4


1-3. MSRP Director’s Office<br />

Bldg. 45QQNM, Rm. 144 (3)<br />

4. E. J. Allen<br />

5. R. F. Apple<br />

6. C. F. Baes, Jr.<br />

7. C. E. Bmberger<br />

8. C. J. Barton<br />

9. E. L. Beah 10. S. E. Beall<br />

11. H. C. Beeson<br />

12. J. T. Bell<br />

13. M. Bender<br />

14. M. R. Bennett<br />

15. C. E. Bettis<br />

16. E. S. Bettis<br />

17. A. L. Bocl-r<br />

18-20 E. G. Bohlmann (3)<br />

21. C. Brashear<br />

22. D. N. Braski<br />

23. J. Braunstein<br />

24. M. A. Bredig<br />

25. R. B. Briggs<br />

26. C. R. Brinkman<br />

27. H. R. Brunstein<br />

28. R. E. Brooksbank<br />

29. C. H. Brown<br />

30. K. B. Brown<br />

3 1 ~ G. D. Brunton<br />

32. J. Brynestad<br />

33. W. D. Burch<br />

34. S. C. Cantor<br />

35. D. W. Cardwell<br />

36. J. A. Carter<br />

37. W. L. Carter<br />

38. B. R. Clark<br />

39. R. E. Clawing<br />

40. C. R. Coleman<br />

41. A. L. Compere<br />

42 56. E. L. Compere (15)<br />

57. J. A. Conlin<br />

58. W. H. Cook<br />

59. J. H. Cooper<br />

60. L. T. Corbin<br />

6 1. R. M. Courice<br />

62. 6. E. Creek<br />

63. J. L. Crowley<br />

141<br />

64. F. L. Culler<br />

65. J. M. Dale<br />

66. E;. L. Daky<br />

67. J. €1. DeVan<br />

68. S. E. Dismuke<br />

69. J. R. DiStefano<br />

70. s. J. Ditto<br />

71. A. S. Dwurkin<br />

92. F. F. Dyer<br />

73. W. P. Eatherly<br />

44. R. L. Egli. ERDA-OR0<br />

75. J. R. EngcE<br />

76. R. B. Evans, HI1<br />

77. L. L. Fairchild<br />

48. 6. @.Fee<br />

79. D. E. Ferguuson<br />

88. L. M. Ferris<br />

81. C. H. Gabbard<br />

82. L. 0. Gilpatrick<br />

83. J. C. Griess<br />

84. W. K. Grimes<br />

85. A. G. Grindell<br />

86. R. H. Guymon<br />

87. W. 8. Harms<br />

88. P. N. Haubenreich<br />

89. P. W. Hembrce<br />

90. P. 6. Herndon<br />

91. R. F. Hibbs<br />

92. J. R. Hightower, Jr.<br />

93. R. M. Hill<br />

94. B. I;. Hitch<br />

95. H. W. Hoffman<br />

96. P. P. Molz<br />

97. R. W. Horton<br />

98. A. Houtzell<br />

99. W. K. Huntley<br />

100. C. R. Hyrnan<br />

101. P. R. Kasten<br />

102. K. J. Ked1<br />

103. C. W. Kee<br />

104. 3. K. Kciser<br />

105. 0. L. Keller<br />

106. M. J. Kelly<br />

107. A. D. Kelmers<br />

108. H. T. Kerr<br />

109. E. M. King


118. PI. W. Kohn<br />

11 1. U. Koskela<br />

I 12. W. R. Laing<br />

113. C. E. Lamb<br />

t 14. J. M. Leitnaker<br />

115. R. B. kindauer<br />

116. T. E. Lindemer<br />

117. R. k. Eir1es<br />

118. E' L. Long<br />

119. 18. A. Lorenz<br />

120. RI. I. Lundin<br />

128. R. s. LYQn<br />

122. R. 13. Mackh<br />

123. M. G. MacPherson<br />

124. R. E. MacPherson<br />

125. A. P. Mdinauskas<br />

126. 6. Mmantov<br />

127. D. L. Manning<br />

12% W. R. Martin<br />

129. @. L. Mattllews, EKDA-OM0<br />

136. L.Maya<br />

131. G. T. Mays<br />

132. H. E. McCoy<br />

133. H. F. McDuffie<br />

134. @. J. McHargue<br />

135. H. A. McLain<br />

136. B. McSabb<br />

137. A. S. Meyer<br />

138. 5. H. Moneyhun<br />

139. R. L. Moore<br />

140. M. T. Morgan<br />

141. J. W. Myers<br />

142. F. H. Neil1<br />

143. J. P. Nichols<br />

144. M. F. &borne<br />

145. G. W~ Parker<br />

146. ff. A. Parker<br />

147. W. W. Parkinson<br />

148. P. Patriarca<br />

149. R. L. Pearson<br />

150. R. B. Perer.<br />

151. A. M. Perry, Jr.<br />

152. T. w. Pickel<br />

153' c. B. Pollock<br />

154. F. a. Posey<br />

155. H. Postma<br />

156. B. E. Prince<br />

157. P. Raaen<br />

158. R. H. Mairiey<br />

159. E. Ricci<br />

160. R. R. Rickard<br />

161. R. C. Robertson<br />

142. T. rc. ~oche<br />

163. M. W. Rosenthal<br />

164. J. L. Rutherford<br />

165. A. D. Wyon<br />

166. PI. c. Savage<br />

167. Vi. F. Schaffer, Jr.<br />

168. e. D. Score<br />

169. B.Scott<br />

170. H. E. Seagren<br />

171. J. H . Shaffer<br />

142. w. D. Shulls<br />

173. M. D. Silverman<br />

174. M. S. Skinner<br />

175. A. N. Smith<br />

176. F. J. Smith<br />

1'97. 6. P. Smith<br />

178. 1. Spiewak<br />

179. J. 0. Stiegler<br />

180. w. A. Strehlow<br />

181. 6'. K. Talbott<br />

182. J. R. Tallackson<br />

183. 0. K. Tallent<br />

184. R. ]E. Thorna<br />

185. J. A. Thompson<br />

186. L. M. Toth<br />

187. 19. B. Trauger<br />

188. W. E. Unger<br />

189. D. Y. Valentine<br />

190. W. C. Waggenei<br />

19 1. A. A. Walls<br />

192. T. N. Washburn<br />

193. J. s. Watson<br />

194. A. M. Weinberg, BRAU<br />

1'55. J. R' weir<br />

196. J. c. White<br />

197. R. P. Wichner<br />

198. M. K. Wilkinsun<br />

199. W. R. 'lirinsbro<br />

200. J. W. Woods<br />

201. W. 6;. Wymer<br />

202. J. P. Young<br />

203. E. L. Youngblood<br />

204- 285. Central Research Library (2)<br />

206. Document Reference Section<br />

207-289. Laboratory Records (3)<br />

2 10. Laboratory Records (LRD-Re)<br />

.. ...<br />

.


. ...<br />

'.a,w . . . . . . ... . .,<br />

cy,&<br />

143<br />

2 I 1. Research and Technical Support Division, Energy Research and Development Administration. Oak Ridge,<br />

Opeiations Office, Post Office Box E, Oak Ridge, TN 378.30<br />

2 12. Director, Reactor Division, Energy Rcsearch ;and Development Administration, Oak Ridge Operations<br />

Office, Post Office Box E, Oak Ridge, 'k?l 34830<br />

2 13 2 14. Director, Division of Rcactor Research and Development, Energy Research and Development Administration,<br />

Washington, D.C. 20545<br />

21 5- 3 18. For distribution as shown in TIHI-4508 under UC-76, Molten-Salt Reactor Technology<br />

'r hi S GQVERNIWENT PRINTING OFFICE 1975748-189/117

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!